from Greek rhetorike) oratory. In ancient times, through its influence on the education of youth, social life, and various forms of literature, rhetoric functioned as a predecessor to pedagogy and a rival to philosophy. The latter often appeared in the form of rhetoric. Rhetoric, which apparently originated in Sicily, was brought into a harmonious system by the sophists. It is known about the existence of a (lost) textbook on rhetoric by the sophist Gorgias, against which Plato speaks out in the dialogue of the same name, disagreeing with him in his understanding of rhetoric. Aristotle dealt with rhetoric from a logical as well as a political point of view and left op. about this theme. The Stoics also paid attention to rhetoric, which finally took a firm place in the curriculum of higher education and existed as a special discipline until the 19th century. Ancient rhetoric experienced its last flourishing in the so-called. second sophistry, around the beginning. 2nd century

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

RHETORIC

Greek: ????? - orator) - originally: the theory of eloquence, the science of the rules and techniques of persuasion. It is traditionally believed that R. was “invented” by Corax from Syracuse, who was the first to teach eloquence c. 476 BC e., and “imported” to Greece by his student’s student Gorgias of Leontinus, who arrived in Athens ca. 427 BC e. The weight of eloquence in the political life of the Greek states of the 5th century. BC e. was exceptionally high, so it is not surprising that schools of eloquence were widespread, the teachers of which were the so-called. sophists. Although throughout the history of ancient society sophistry and speech were closely related, they oppose each other in their understanding of communication as the goal of language: if sophistry does not consider communication to be the goal of speech at all, then speech is a technique for achieving success in communication. However, it was precisely the close connection with sophistry that made R. the target of philosophical criticism of Plato, who was not inclined to distinguish sophistry from R. Calling R. “knack,” “pleasing base passions,” Plato sought to substantiate the theory of eloquence with dialectics (logic). An outline of the theory of eloquence, based on dialectical logic, is given in the Phaedrus, where speakers are invited, firstly, to “raise to a single idea that which is scattered everywhere, so that, by defining each, the subject of teaching is made clear,” and, secondly, , “divide everything into types, into natural components, while trying not to fragment any of them.” The excessive abstractness of this sketch forced Aristotle, who developed and systematized the logical theory of eloquence, to significantly soften his attitude towards R. in order to pave the way from logical foundations to practical eloquence.

Aristotle's treatise "Rhetoric" opens with a statement of the correspondence between dialectics (logic) and R. with regard to the means of proof: just as in dialectics there is guidance (induction), syllogism and apparent syllogism, so in R. there is an example, enthymeme and apparent enthymeme . Just as an example is similar to induction, an enthymeme is similar to a syllogism; it represents a conclusion not from necessary ones (like a syllogism), but from probable positions. Unlike Plato, Aristotle seeks to separate philosophy and sophistry and, for this purpose, conducts a study of the relationships connecting philosophy with dialectics and politics. From view Aristotle, R. is both a branch of the science of morals (politics) and dialectics. According to Aristotle, R. can be defined as the ability to prove, “the ability to find possible ways of persuasion regarding a given subject.” Like dialectics, dialectics remains a methodology, a science of methods of proof, but cannot be reduced to proving a particular thesis. Dividing all speeches into deliberative, laudatory and judicial, Aristotle devotes a significant part of his “Rhetoric” (book 1, 3 - 15) to listing the general provisions on the basis of which speeches of each type should be built. Thus, both in the aspect of form and in the aspect of content, R., as Aristotle understands it, is closely connected with philosophy, which distinguishes it from sophistry, which is supposedly not based on any consistent philosophical theory. At the same time, Aristotle considered poetry only as a theory of oral eloquence, contrasting it in his treatise “Poetics” with the theory of literature. If the goal of eloquence is persuasion, then the goal of literature is imitation; literature depicts events that “should be obvious without teaching,” while eloquence represents the thoughts contained in speech “through the speaker and in the course of his speech.” Aristotle's rhetorical theory is distinguished by two main features: 1) it is philosophical R., R. as a probabilistic logic used by political speakers; 2) this is the theory of oral speech, radically different from the theory of literature.

After Aristotle's death, his rhetorical theory was developed by Theophrastus, Demetrius of Phalerum and other Peripatetics; along with the speeches of outstanding Athenian orators of the 4th century. BC e. Isocrates and Demosthenes, it became a model for numerous rhetorical theories of the Hellenistic era. The time of Hellenistic monarchies did not contribute to the development of political eloquence, the more intensively school studies of speech developed. In Hellenistic theories of speech, Aristotle's ideas about the division of speech are developed; according to these theories, preparing a speech is divided into five parts: 1) finding (invention), or discovering evidence, boils down to highlighting the subject of discussion and establishing those commonplaces on which to base the evidence; 2) arrangement (disposition), or establishment of the correct order of evidence - comes down to dividing the speech into a preface, a story (statement of circumstances), evidence (subdivided, in turn, into defining the topic, actually proving one’s arguments, refuting the arguments of opponents and retreating) , conclusion; 3) verbal expression (elocution), or the search for a language suitable for the found subject of speech and evidence, consists in the selection of words, their combination, the use of figures of speech and thought in order to achieve the four qualities of speech: correctness, clarity, appropriateness, splendor (the Stoics also added brevity to them); 4) memorization - consists of using mnemonic means in order to firmly retain in memory the subject of speech and the selected evidence; 5) utterance - is the control of voice and gestures during speech, so that the speaker matches his behavior with the dignity of the subject of speech.

Different parts of the theory of the division of speech were developed unevenly: in ancient rhetoric the greatest attention was paid to invention, somewhat less to disposition and elocution, and the role of the latter became more and more important from treatise to treatise. The temporary gap between R. and the socio-political life of ancient states was overcome when R. began to develop in the Roman Republic, that is, in a state in which in the 11th-1st centuries. BC e. The importance of political eloquence increased. The anonymous treatise “To Herennius” and the works of Marcus Tullius Cicero and Marcus Fabius Quintilian became a theoretical generalization of Roman eloquence. The treatise "To Herennius" is an ancient Roman textbook of R., remarkable for its systematicity, also known for the fact that it contains one of the first classifications of rhetorical figures. In addition to 19 figures of thought and 35 figures of speech, the author identifies 10 additional figures of speech in which language is used in an unusual way (words are used in a figurative sense, there is a semantic deviation) and which will later be called tropes (?????? - turn ). The problem of distinguishing a trope from a figure, so significant for the subsequent development of R., dates back to this treatise.

R. Cicero, on the contrary, adheres to the Peripatetic tradition. Although in the dialogue “On the Orator” Cicero identifies 49 figures of thought and 37 figures of speech, he does this rather carelessly, since he is occupied with completely different questions. He, like Aristotle, is interested in metaphor, which seems to him to be the prototype of any decoration of speech contained in a single word, which is why Cicero considers metonymy, synecdoche, catachresis to be varieties of metaphor, and allegory to be a string of extended metaphors. But most of all, again, like Aristotle, he is interested in the philosophical foundations of eloquence, which Cicero describes, generally following the doctrine of the division of speech. Cicero devoted a special treatise to discovery (invention). His R. (as well as the R. of the treatise “To Herennius”) is often characterized as an attempt to combine the Hellenistic doctrine of location with the doctrine of status, born in Roman judicial eloquence. Statuses make it possible to more accurately determine the subject of speech; in judicial speech, the essence of the issue about which the judicial debate has begun. R. of the treatise "To Herennius" distinguished three statuses: establishment ("who did?"), definition ("what did he do?"), legality ("how did he do it?"); Cicero divided the latter status into three more: discrepancies, ambiguities, contradictions. The emphasis on the subject of speech is not accidental; Cicero considered the analysis of a general question (thesis) and the development of the theme specified by the thesis (amplification) to be the main means of persuasion. Thus, R.'s orientation toward philosophical logic was again emphasized, and the authority of Cicero as an orator reinforced the correctness of such an orientation. If Aristotle's R. was the model for the rhetorical treatises of the Hellenistic era and for Cicero, then Cicero's R. became the model for the rhetorical treatises of the Roman Empire and for the rhetoric of the Middle Ages.

Turning both the theoretical views and oratorical practice of Cicero into a model, Quintilian created a program for teaching R., set out in the treatise “On the Education of the Orator.” According to this program, R. - the art of speaking beautifully - was studied after grammar, the art of speaking and writing correctly. Thus, R. found herself outside the scope of grammatical control. However, Quintilian also owns a classification of types of deviation (from the grammatical norm), which is still used in R. Quintilian identified four types of deviation: 1) addition; 2) reduction; 3) addition with reduction, replacement of one element with an identical one; 4) permutation, replacement of one element with one that is not identical to it. The realization that decorations of speech violate the rules of grammar, that the basis of any decoration of speech is a deviation from these rules, forced us to reconsider the question of the relationship between grammar and R. Quintilian’s work ushered in the era of the so-called. "second sophistry" (c. 50 - 400 AD). The famous treatise of Aelius Donatus, named after its first word “Barbarisms” (c. 350), ended this era and with it the entire history of ancient R. Donatus, following Quintilian, defines the essence of R. through deviations, introducing the concept of “metaplasms.” , which means minimal deviation, distortion of the meaning of a word for the purpose of metrical decoration in poetry. Donat distinguishes between prose and poetry (here: everyday speech and literature); rhetorical embellishments justified in the latter turn into errors in the former, metaplasmas turn into barbarisms. 17 figures of speech and 13 main tropes are complications of metaplasms, and therefore any rhetorical device, if used in everyday speech, is associated with a violation of grammatical rules. Donatus's treatise is the first recorded invasion of grammar into an area that previously belonged undividedly to R., which means a break with ancient tradition and the beginning of medieval R.

Compiled by Marcianus Capella (5th century AD) into a trivium grammar. R., logic (dialectics) find themselves in obviously unequal conditions. Logic and grammar, capable of abstracting from a specific language, form a unity opposed to R., applying to R. criteria that are not applicable to it, as a result of which the field of R. is constantly decreasing. Already in the treatises of Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius and Isidore of Seville, not the problem of the mutual relations of logic and speech is posed, but the problem of the relationship of grammar to speech, the problem of the difference between different arts of speech from each other. Grammar in the Middle Ages turns from descriptive to instructive; grammar of this kind is close to logic and opposite to rhetoric, as a result of which the content of rhetorical treatises changes: rhetoricians of the Middle Ages move from the study of invention and disposition to the study of elocution and, first of all, the question of the classification of tropes and figures. The three main directions in which medieval literature develops are the art of preaching, the art of letter writing, and the art of versification. The idea of ​​preaching as the art of oral eloquence is gradually being replaced by the theory of literary RR preaching, which is close to classical ancient preaching, and explored the relationship between such necessary parts of a sermon as Holy Scripture, examples, bibliographic reference books, collections of sermons, and the art of the preacher himself. The method of writing letters was relatively highly developed only in Italy and only in the 11th - 14th centuries; here and precisely at this time the most famous scribes Alberic of Monte Cassino (1087) and Lawrence of Aquileia (1300) appeared. But R. versification was relatively widespread. It represented, in essence, a new section of R. - R. written text; in antiquity, such an understanding of poetry was not accepted, however, and the history of literary theory in antiquity comes down to a few brilliant episodes (Aristotle’s “Poetics,” Horace’s “Science of Poetry,” etc.), without forming a tradition. All the more remarkable is the appearance of rhetorical treatises in which the classification of rhetorical devices was based on the material of versification; The spread of such treatises is partly explained by the fact that in them the area of ​​poetry is limited to poetry (literature), while attempts to go beyond the boundaries of this area are suppressed by grammar. The pinnacle of the development of Roman versification in the Middle Ages were the treatises “Doctrinale” by Alexander of Vildiers and “Grecisms” by Evrard of Bethune; they presented different systems of metaplasms, schemes (figures), tropes and “colors of R. "used by poets.

Medieval R. relied on Latin R., the most famous authors were Donatus and Cicero (to whom the treatise “To Herennius” was also attributed); in the 12th century. Aristotle was rediscovered, and in the 15th century. - Quintilian, but the essence of medieval R. changed little from this. Literary literature, limited to logic and grammar, which appeared in the Middle Ages, was further developed during the Renaissance and in modern times. Despite the fact that declamation, popular in the era of the “second sophistry,” again became widespread during the Renaissance, the main direction of development of poetry in the 15th–16th centuries. literary literature remained. Works dedicated to literature or simply touching on some of its problems, even if they were written by such outstanding thinkers as F. Melanchthon, E. Rotterdam, L. Balla, X. L. Viles, F. Bacon, reveal the influence of ancient samples, perceived, however, through the prism of ideas about R. that developed in the Middle Ages, and the absence of new approaches to R. Produced in the 16th century. Pierre de la Ramé's reform of logic, developed in the field of R. O. Talon, limited logic to the study of style and execution and reduced style to a set of tropes and figures. Within this narrow field, separated from philosophy and subject to grammatical control, R. again experienced a rise in the 17th and 18th centuries. At this time, classical examples were restored in their meaning and freed from unlawful interpretations, but the authors of rhetorical treatises consciously abandoned the philosophical justification of R., as it was in Aristotle and Cicero. This rise of R. took place primarily in France and England and was associated with the culture of classicism. The creation of the French Academy (1635) leads, among other things, to the emergence of the first French R. - Bari and Le Gras, followed by R. B. Lamy, J.-B. Crevier, L. Domeron; The work of one of the authors of the Encyclopedia, S.-Sh., enjoyed special authority. Dumarce. At the same time, R. was used in the works of F. Fenelon and N. Boileau, who substantiated classicist poetics. Philosophers, in particular R. Descartes and B. Pascal, criticized R. as such, not finding much sense in preserving this discipline. The same thing is repeated in England, where the establishment of the Royal Society (1662) leads to the appearance of the English R. J. Ward, J. Lawson, J. Campbell, J. Monboddo and the most authoritative R. "English Quintilian" - X. Blair, to the formation of the Orators Movement led by T. Sheridan, who sought to create a school of correct English speech, to sharp criticism of R. as such by J. Locke. However, the sad fate of R. was determined not by this criticism from philosophers, which (as had already taken place during the time of Plato and Aristotle) ​​could only give birth to a new type of R., restoring the connection between logic and R., but by the separation of R. and poetics.

Literary literature was perceived at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. as the reproduction of templates, uncreative adherence to traditional models, while the new discipline - stylistics - promised to consider literature from a perspective. creative freedom and full disclosure of the author’s individuality. However, the idea of ​​R. as a kingdom dominated by templates is incorrect. R. of the last great French rhetorician P. Fontanier testifies that at the beginning of the 19th century. R. developed creatively and faced the creation of a new philosophical theory of language. Fontanier, while generally quite cautious in criticizing R. Dumarcet, sharply disagreed with him in his understanding of the theory of tropes. Dumarce follows the tradition, according to which a figure is generally any rhetorical deviation, and a trope is only semantic (the use of a word in a figurative sense). R. Fontanier questions the legitimacy of the very distinction between direct and figurative meaning when it comes to one of the groups of tropes. Traditionally, a trope is defined, as Fontanier notes, through the concept of translation; every word used in a figurative sense can be translated by a word with the same meaning used in the literal sense. If the realm of tropes is limited only to words used in a figurative sense, which Fontanier called figures of designation, then R., as a system of tropes and figures, truly represents the kingdom of templates. However, highlighting among the tropes those that involve the use of a word in a new sense (according to tradition, such a trope is called catachresis), Fontanier moves on to R., who is looking for the reasons for the emergence of new meanings and is not limited to describing the functions of rhetorical devices. If we add to this that Fontanier sought to show the author’s, unclichéd character of the figures, then the bias of a negative attitude towards R., which predetermined its replacement by stylistics, becomes obvious. R. Fontanier received a worthy assessment only in the second half of the 20th century. in the works of J. Genette, and in the 19th century. circumstances were not in R's favor.

In order to engage in R. in the 19th century, one had to be either a cultural historian, like G. Gerber or R. Volkmann, or an eccentric lone thinker, like C. S. Peirce or F. Nietzsche. Philosophical foundations of “neorhetoric” of the 20th century. were mainly created by the latter two. Undertaking a revision of the entire trivium, C. S. Peirce developed the theory of speculative R., or methodeutics, which was supposed to explore signs in their semiotic dimension of tertiaryity, as interpretants in the minds of interpreters, that is, to explore the transfer of meaning from consciousness to consciousness, social symbolizing the function of the sign. Another philosophical source of modern rhetoric is Nietzsche’s rhetorical ideas, most concentratedly expressed in his early work “On Truth and Lies in the Extra-Moral Sense,” where Nietzsche argues that the truths of metaphysics, morality, and science are anthropomorphic, metaphorical, and metonymic (tropological) in nature: truths - these are metaphors that people have forgotten what they represent. Outlines of the philosophy of R., created by Peirce, Nietzsche and some others, existed somewhere on the periphery of the sciences of language, R.'s place among which throughout the 19th century. stylistics was firmly occupied. This situation began to slowly change only in the 20s. XX century

Today we can distinguish several independent trends in modern literature. 1. Developed by English and American literary scholars belonging to the so-called. "new criticism", and going back to the activities of the Chicago school of neo-Aristotelianism. Within the framework of this approach, R. is defined as the science of socially symbolizing activity, the goal of which is to establish social identity, and the initial condition is misunderstanding. 2. “Neo-rhetoric” by X. Perelman and L. Olbrecht-Tytek, based on an audience-oriented theory of argumentation. Within the framework of this approach, R. is assigned the task of studying those means of argumentation (example, illustration, analogy, metaphor, etc.) that logic is not usually concerned with. 3. Critical-hermeneutic R. Gadamer and his followers. Within the framework of this approach, it is believed that in our time poetry is giving way to hermeneutics; the ancient science of interpreting oral speech is being replaced by the modern science of interpreting written sources. Evidence of growing interest in R. is used by Gadamer as arguments in favor of hermeneutics. 4. The semiotics of rhetorical figures goes back to the speculative R. Peirce. However, due to the fact that Peirce's theory was relatively little known, the actual source of various variants of the semiotics of rhetorical figures was R. Jacobson's theory of metaphor and metonymy. In a number of his works, the earliest of which dates back to 1921, O. Jacobson considers metaphor and metonymy as prototype figures, believing that metaphor is a transfer by similarity, and metonymy by contiguity. The theory proposed by Jacobson can be interpreted in two ways: a) this theory can be perceived as a sketch of a taxonomy of rhetorical figures and, following the example of the ancients, restore this taxonomy. One of the most developed systems of rhetorical figures is the R. of Liege logicians, united in the so-called. "group M" Based on the concept of the ideal zero level of language, group M considers rhetorical figures to be deviations from the zero sign, with the minimum deviation being called a metabola. The entire set of metabols is divided into several groups. Following the glossematics of L. Hjelmslev, group M distinguishes figures of the plane of expression and figures of the plane of content; the first of them are divided into morphological and syntactic figures, and the second into semantic and logical. Thus, four groups of metabols are distinguished: metaplasms (phonetic or graphic deviations at the word level, for example, a pun), metataxis (phonetic or graphic deviations at the sentence level, for example, ellipsis), metasemes (semantic deviations at the word level, for example, metaphor), related to the language system, and metalogisms (semantic deviations at the sentence level, for example, irony), metabols of referential content. Using the types of deviations introduced by Quintilian, group M makes further clarifications to this classification of metabolites. The analysis of rhetorical figures is based on two different types of semantic decomposition proposed by group M: decomposition according to the type of logical multiplication (a tree is branches, and leaves, and a trunk, and roots...) and decomposition according to the type of logical summation (a tree is a poplar , or oak, or willow, or birch...). Today, R. group M is the most advanced classification of rhetorical figures, using the methods of structural semantics. Since group M considers linguistics as a discipline that characterizes literary discourse as only one among many others, group M linguistics is close to the text linguistics developed by the structuralists. The linguistics of R. Barth's text is characteristic in this regard. Even in his early works devoted to the mythologems of social consciousness, Barthes introduced the concept of a connotative sign system, that is, a system that uses the signs of another system as signifiers. Barthes later showed that for a certain society at a certain stage of its development, the field of connotative signifieds is always the same; this area is called ideology. The area of ​​connotative signifiers (connotators) varies depending on the substance of the connotators; this area is called R. The relationship between ideology and R. can be likened to the relationship between a work functioning as a sign and an evasive text working in the sphere of the signifier; then R. becomes an ancient analogue of modern text linguistics, as Barthes understood it, or even a branch of this linguistics. The variants of semiotics of rhetorical figures developed by K. Bremont, A.-J. also lead to similar conclusions. Greimas, J. Genette, E. Coseriu, J. Lacan, N. Ruvet, Ts. Todorov, U. Eco; b) Jakobson’s theory of metaphor and metonymy can also be interpreted in the spirit of Nietzsche’s rhetorical ideas as a description of the mechanism of text generation. This kind of R. was first developed by W. Benjamin, but only in deconstructivism was it developed and consistently applied in practice. In the famous article “White Mythology,” J. Derrida comes to the conclusion that it is fundamentally impossible to reduce metaphysics to metaphorics or metaphorics to metaphysics, and considers the difference between literature and philosophy, determined by the way of using R., as the justification for any undertaking, both in one and the other field . In development of Derrida's ideas, P. de Man proposed a detailed model of the mechanism of text generation, based on deconstructivist R. P. De Man believes that every narrative is a filling of the gap generated by an ironic allegory, which is the text-generating mechanism. The combination of the allegorical level of discourse, which determines the failure of any narration and reading, with the metaphorical level, which determines the failure of any name, allows Manu to create a model of the text. The basis of this theory is the opposition of R. as the art of persuasion, already obvious from history, to R. as a system of tropes: the discovery of a technique leads to the destruction of the conviction achieved with the help of this technique. In this regard, R., refuting itself, can serve as a model of an eternally unfinished self-contradictory text, in relation to which literature and philosophy act as two opposing strategies of interpretation, conditioned by R.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

At the time of its emergence in ancient times, rhetoric was understood only in the literal meaning of the term - as the art of an orator, the art of oral public speaking. A broad understanding of the subject of rhetoric is the property of a later time. Nowadays, if it is necessary to distinguish the technique of oral public speaking from rhetoric in a broad sense, the term is used to denote the first oratorio.

Traditional rhetoric (bene dicendi scientia “the science of good speech”, according to Quintilian’s definition) was opposed to grammar (recte dicendi scientia - “the science of correct speech”), poetics and hermeneutics. The subject of traditional rhetoric, in contrast to poetics, was only prose speech and prose texts. Rhetoric was distinguished from hermeneutics by a predominant interest in the persuasive power of the text and only a weakly expressed interest in other components of its content that did not affect the persuasive power.

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

Subject and tasks of rhetoric.

Differences in the definition of the subject and tasks of rhetoric throughout its history boiled down, in essence, to differences in the understanding of what kind of speech should be considered good And quality. Two main directions have emerged.

The first direction, coming from Aristotle, connected rhetoric with logic and proposed to consider good speech convincing, effective speech. At the same time, effectiveness also came down to persuasiveness, to the ability of speech to win recognition (consent, sympathy, sympathy) of listeners, to force them to act in a certain way. Aristotle defined rhetoric as “the faculty of finding possible modes of persuasion on any given subject.”

The second direction also arose in Ancient Greece. Its founders include Isocrates and some other rhetoricians. Representatives of this trend were inclined to consider good richly decorated, magnificent, built according to the canons aesthetics speech. Persuasiveness continued to matter, but was not the only or main criterion for assessing speech. Following F. van Eemeren, the direction in rhetoric originating from Aristotle can be called “logical”, and from Isocrates – “literary”.

During the Hellenistic era, the “literary” direction strengthened and displaced the “logical” to the periphery of didactic and scientific rhetoric. This happened, in particular, in connection with the decline in the role of political eloquence and the increase in the role of ceremonial, solemn eloquence after the fall of democratic forms of government in Greece and Rome. In the Middle Ages, this ratio continued to persist. Rhetoric began to be confined to the sphere of school and university education and turned into literary rhetoric. She was in a complex relationship with homiletics - the doctrine of Christian church preaching. Representatives of homiletics either turned to rhetoric in order to mobilize its tools for composing church sermons, or again fenced themselves off from it as a “pagan” science. The predominance of the “decorative-aesthetic” idea of ​​one’s own subject deepened the separation of rhetoric from speech practice. At a certain stage, proponents of “literary” rhetoric stopped caring altogether about whether their speeches were suitable for effectively persuading anyone. The development of the rhetorical paradigm in this direction ended with a crisis of rhetoric in the mid-18th century.

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

Neorhetorics did not reject the results obtained in line with the “literary” direction. Moreover, some rhetoric researchers to this day pay primary attention to the aesthetic qualities of speech (proponents of rhetoric as the science of artistic and expressive speech: to some extent, the authors General rhetoric, V.N. Toporov, etc.). Today we can talk about the peaceful coexistence and mutual enrichment of the “logical” and “literary” directions with the dominance of the first.

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

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

Definition in line with the “literary” direction: Philological discipline that studies the methods of constructing artistic and expressive speech, primarily prose and oral; comes into close contact with poetics and stylistics (V.N. Toporov).

Divisions of rhetoric.

Traditionally, there is a distinction between general and specific rhetoric. General rhetoric is the science of universal principles and rules for constructing good speech, independent of the specific sphere of speech communication. Private rhetoric examines the characteristics of certain types of speech communication in connection with the conditions of communication, the functions of speech and areas of human activity. In modern rhetoric, the term “general rhetoric” also has a second meaning – one of the areas of new rhetoric. The use of this term began with the publication of the book by Dubois J. et al. General rhetoric. Sometimes "general rhetoric" is used as a synonym for "non-rhetoric".

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

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

Nowadays it is possible to distinguish as many private rhetorics as there are spheres of communication, functional varieties of language, and in some cases smaller functional divisions (for example, the rhetoric of a television speech is a subsection of journalistic rhetoric).

The dominant types of speech communication have the greatest impact on public consciousness in every era. Therefore, the rhetorical disciplines that study them attract the greatest interest. Currently, this is the rhetoric of the media, political and business (commercial) rhetoric.

Other divisions of rhetoric include the division into theoretical, applied and thematic rhetoric. Theoretical rhetoric deals with the scientific study of the rules for constructing high-quality speech, and applied rhetoric uses the rules and patterns found, as well as the best examples of the most successful speeches, in the practice of teaching literature. Theoretical and applied rhetoric are identical to scientific and educational rhetoric. Thematic rhetoric considers the unification of different types of literature around one important topic, for example, presidential elections. It became widespread in the USA.

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

Finding or inventing speech or text material

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

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

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

In the old rhetoric, material was divided into specific cases (causa) and general questions (quaestio). The derivation of the latter from the former was carried out by abstracting from the specific circumstances of the case. For example, from the specific case “candidate N was caught lying twice during the last election campaign,” one can derive the general question “Is it permissible to lie in the name of gaining power?” General questions, in turn, are divided into practical (as in the example given) and theoretical, for example, “what is the purpose of man?” In modern works on rhetoric, attempts are being made to clarify this division of material. It is proposed, in particular, to distinguish between encyclopedic, empirical, “based on data obtained by the author himself,” and comparative, “bringing empirical and encyclopedic into correspondence.”

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

The ways of revealing the topic include, in particular, whether the topic will be presented in a problematic form or descriptively, in the form of dispassionate logical reasoning or emotionally. Old and new rhetoric traces these different methods to sources or modes of persuasion. There are three such modes: logos, ethos and pathos.

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

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

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

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

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

1) Conditions: Who? What?

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

An example of topic development: subject (what?) – computer; audience (for whom?) – for philologists; computer definition, internal architecture (central processor, read-only memory, etc.); peripheral devices, networks consisting of several computers, global network, etc. Comparison: computer and abacus, computer and TV, computer and mobile phone (general functions), etc.

2) Conditions: How? With the help of whom? Through what?

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

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

3) Conditions: Where? When?

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

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

4) Conditions: Why? Why?

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

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

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

In modern didactic rhetoric one can find the identification of the concepts of “place” (loci) and “common places” (loci communes). Meanwhile, in theoretical rhetoric, starting from Aristotle, these concepts are not identical. “Commonplaces” do not mean standardized aspects of consideration of any topic, but meaningfully defined passages that served “to emotionally strengthen existing arguments... reasoning about the need to honor the gods, laws, the state, the covenants of ancestors, as well as about the disastrous damage that threatens these strongholds of human society if the accused is not convicted (in the opinion of the prosecutor) or acquitted (in the opinion of the defense lawyer). Due to the abstractness of their content, these motives could develop equally in speeches on any occasion: hence their name” (M.L. Gasparov).

The technique of disseminating and enriching the content found using the technique of rhetorical passages is called rhetorical amplification.

Arrangement or composition of material

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

The main blocks of the structure of a text or speech range from three (introduction – main part – conclusion) to seven (introduction – definition of the topic with its divisions – presentation – digression – argumentation or proof of one’s thesis – refutation – conclusion). You can add one more block to these blocks - the title of the text.

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

1. Title. It did not stand out as a separate block in traditional rhetoric. The importance of titles has increased with the development of the rhetoric of mass communication. Here, the title (or the name of a television program) began to be considered as a means of attracting the addressee’s attention to the text of a newspaper publication or to a television program in conditions of an alternative choice associated with a constant increase in the number of messages received by the addressee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For both Aristotle and non-rhetorians, argumentation (including refutation) is considered the most important compositional block, since it plays the main role in persuading the audience, and, consequently, in achieving rhetorical goals as such. The doctrine of argumentation actively developed already in old rhetoric. In the new rhetoric, the theory of argumentation represents its main part.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verbal expression or diction

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

The verbal expression must meet four criteria: correctness (meet the rules of grammar, spelling and pronunciation), clarity (consist of generally understood words in generally accepted combinations, and, if possible, not include abstract, borrowed and other words that may not be clear to the audience), grace or ornamentation (to be more aesthetic than everyday speech) and appropriateness. Relevance in traditional rhetoric came down to the harmony of the topic and the choice of linguistic means, especially vocabulary. From the requirement of appropriateness arose the theory of three styles, according to which low objects should be spoken in words of low style, high objects in high style, and neutral objects in words of medium style.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memory, remembering

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

Performance, pronunciation

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

Rhetoric and related disciplines.

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

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

Brief historical sketch and personalities.

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

The beginning of rhetoric is usually traced back to the 460s BC. and connect with the activities of the senior sophists Corax, Tisias, Protagoras and Gorgias. Corax allegedly wrote a textbook that has not reached us The Art of Persuasion, and Tisias opened one of the first schools of eloquence.

Protagoras

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

Gorgias

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

Fox

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

Isocrates

(c. 436–388 BC) is considered the founder of “literary” rhetoric - the first rhetorician who paid primary attention to written speech. He was one of the first to introduce the concept of composition of an oratorical work. His school adopted the distinction of four compositional blocks. The features of his style are complex periods, which, however, have a clear and distinct structure and are therefore easily understandable, rhythmic division of speech and an abundance of decorative elements. The rich decoration made Isocrates' speeches somewhat ponderous for listening comprehension. However, as literary reading they were popular, as evidenced by the large number of lists on papyri.

Plato

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

Aristotle

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

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

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

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

Cicero

(106–43 BC).Cicero's theory of rhetoric is presented mainly in five of his works: About finding, Topeka– application of Aristotle’s work of the same name to Roman oratory practice, Speaker, Brutus And About the speaker. In them, Cicero discusses the structure and content of speech, the choice of one of the styles in accordance with the content of the speech, the period and the sources of persuasion.

Quintilian

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

Aurelius Augustine

(354–430), one of the church fathers, taught rhetoric, among other things, before his conversion to Christianity. Having become a Christian, St. Augustine substantiated the importance of eloquence for the interpretation of biblical provisions and for Christian preaching. His discussions on the role of rhetoric for the interpretation and explanation of Christian teaching are contained, in particular, in the treatise De doctrina christiana (About Christian teaching). In many respects, it is his merit that rhetoric was not rejected by Christians and continued to be developed in the Christian era.

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

Pierre Ramus

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

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

The original concept of Russian rhetoric was proposed by M.V. Lomonosov (1711–1765) in A Brief Guide to Rhetoric(1743) and A Brief Guide to Eloquence(1747). These books finally consolidated the Russian scientific terminology of rhetoric. From the second half of the 18th to the mid-19th centuries. Many textbooks, manuals and theoretical works on rhetoric were published (according to V.I. Annushkin’s bibliography - over a hundred titles, not counting reprints). The following works have undergone the greatest number of reprints: An Experience in Rhetoric, Composed and Taught at the St. Petersburg Mining School(1st ed. – 1796) by I.S. Rizhsky (1759–1811); General rhetoric(1829) and Private rhetoric(1832) by N.F. Koshansky (1784 or 1785–1831), later republished with the participation of K.P. Zelenetsky, known for his own rhetorical works, and Brief rhetoric(1809) A.F. Merzlyakova (1778–1830). Other theoretically important works of Russian rhetoricians were also known: Theory of eloquence for all types of prose writings(1830) by A.I. Galich, who included “psychological, aesthetic and ethical principles in the consideration of rhetoric”, Rules of Higher Eloquence(manuscript 1792, published in 1844) M.M. Speransky, Foundations of Russian literature(1792) A.S. Nikolsky (1755–1834) and Readings about literature(1837) I.I. Davydova (1794–1863).

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

Revival of rhetoric in the 20th century. started in the USA. He is associated primarily with the activities of I.A. Richards and K. Burke. Work of I.A.Richards Philosophy of rhetoric(1936) showed the relevance and social significance of “persuasive” rhetoric, and the work of C. Burke (in particular, Rhetoric of motives) emphasized the importance of literary rhetoric.

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

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

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

They enjoy authority among researchers A Guide to Literary Rhetoric(1960) by G. Lausberg and methodologically important work General rhetoric(1970) of the Liege group “mu” (J. Dubois and colleagues). After the publication of the work of the Lièges, the new rhetoric is often called “general rhetoric.”

In Russia, the crisis of rhetoric turned out to be shifted in time. Starting approximately in the middle of the 19th century, it ended in the late 70s - early 80s of the 20th century. Despite this, in the 20s of the 20th century. In Russia, attempts were made to revive the theory of oratory. The world's first Institute of the Living Word was created with the participation of S.M. Bondi, V.E. Meyerhold, A.V. Lunacharsky, N.A. Engelhardt, L.V. Shcherba, L.P. Yakubinsky and others, functioned laboratory of public speech by K.A.Sunneberg. The rhetorical initiative did not receive support from official circles. A strange opposition has formed in the official theory of oratory. Rhetoric as a bearer of bad qualities began to be contrasted with Soviet oratory as a bearer of good qualities: “In our time, rhetoric is a condemning definition of a pompous, outwardly beautiful, but lacking in substance work, speech, etc.” ( Dictionary of literary terms. M., 1974, p. 324). At the same time, an objective and detailed analysis of even Soviet oratory was not encouraged.

The harbingers of a way out of the “rhetorical crisis” were certain important theoretical works on rhetoric in the 1960–1970s (S.S. Averintsev, G.Z. Apresyan, V.P. Vompersky, etc.). In modern Russia, a significant number of works on didactic and theoretical rhetoric appear, which allows us to talk about a rhetorical renaissance. The authors of these works can be divided into five groups. The division is distinguished by a certain degree of convention, in particular because different works of one researcher sometimes allow him to be classified into different groups at the same time.

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

Perspectives on rhetoric.

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

Ethical aspect: rhetoric, when used correctly, is an effective tool in the fight against linguistic aggression, demagoguery, and manipulation. Here, didactic rhetoric plays an important role. Knowledge of the basics of the disciplines of the rhetorical cycle will allow you to recognize demagogic and manipulative propaganda techniques in the media and in private communications, and, therefore, effectively defend against them.

Leon Ivanov

Literature:

Ancient rhetoric. M., 1978
Dubois J. et al. General rhetoric. M., 1986
Perelman H., Olbrecht-Tyteka. L. From book « The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation" – In the book: Language and modeling of social interaction. M., 1987
Graudina L.K., Miskevich G.I. Theory and practice of Russian eloquence. M., 1989
Toporov V.N. Rhetoric. Paths. Figures of speech. – In the book: Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. M., 1990
Gasparov M.L. Cicero and ancient rhetoric. – In the book: Cicero Marcus Tullius. Three treatises on the art of oratory. M., 1994
Zaretskaya E.N. Rhetoric. Theory and practice of linguistic communication. M., 1998
Ivin A.A. Basics of Argumentation Theory. M., 1997
Annushkin V.I. History of Russian rhetoric: Reader. M., 1998
Klyuev E.V. Rhetoric (Invention. Disposition. Elocution). M., 1999
Rozhdestvensky Yu.V. Theory of rhetoric. M., 1999
Lotman Yu.M. Rhetoric - a mechanism for generating meaning(section of the book “Inside Thinking Worlds”). – In the book: Lotman Yu.M. Semiosphere. St. Petersburg, 2000



Rhetoric

– theory and art of speech, a fundamental science that studies the objective laws and rules of speech. Since speech is a tool for managing and organizing social and production processes, speech forms the norm and style of social life. The classical ancient tradition considered psychology as “the art of finding ways of persuasion regarding each given subject” ( Aristotle), "the art of speaking well (worthy) (ars bene et ornate dicendi – Quintilian). In the Russian tradition, R. is defined as “the doctrine of eloquence” ( M.V. Lomonosov), "the science of inventing, arranging and expressing thoughts" ( N.F. Koshansky), the subject of which is “speech” ( K.P. Zelenetsky). Modern speech is the doctrine of the effective speech construction of a developed information society, which involves the study and mastery of all types of social-speech interaction. R. as a science studies the laws and rules of speech in various types and genres of modern literature, R. as an art presupposes the ability to speak and write effectively and the development of speech abilities.

In definitions of speech, precise epithets are usually sought for the exemplary qualities of speech, which is why speech is called the science of persuasive, decorated (in classical works), expedient, effective, efficient, and harmonizing speech (in modern theories of speech). The qualities of speech are also called in the doctrine of style, including clarity, accuracy, purity, brevity, decency, etc. etc. None of these qualities exhausts the idea of ​​the speech ideal, but their totality makes it possible to call R. the doctrine of perfect speech. The perfection of speech is associated with speech ideals, speech patterns, and stylistic preferences existing in the public and personal consciousness.

R. - the doctrine of the education of the individual through the word. A person’s personality becomes an individual embodiment of his bodily-spiritual unity only when his moral and intellectual worldview is formed, which is embodied in the nature of speech. That is why for rhetorical education it is not indifferent what speeches, texts (the content of the academic subject) will be used to teach R.

Modern speech studies all types of social-speech interaction. It is not enough to define R. as a science only about the art of oratory, with which it began in the ancient polis. Already Russian classical literature presupposed an appeal to written, philosophical and scientific speech. literature, and modern R. also includes the R. of colloquial-everyday speech and R. of the media.

In Russian science there is a traditional division into general and particular R. In any case, already in the Latin rhetoric of the Kyiv Theological Academy of the 17th century. It is written that there are general rules for conducting and constructing speech (the subject of general speech) and recommendations for conducting speech in different types of literature (the subject of private speech).

General rhetoric in the tradition dating back to Cicero and Quintilian, it includes five sections (the so-called rhetorical canon), each of which shows individual points in the preparation and implementation of speech: 1) invention (lat. inventio - What say?), 2) location (lat. dispositio – Where say?), 3) expression (lat. elocutio – How say?), 4) memory (lat. memoria), 5) pronunciation and body movement (lat. pronuntiatio).

General speech in the tradition dating back to Aristotle has the following sections: 1) the image of the speaker; 2) invention – content of speech; 3) composition; 4) speech emotions; 5) speech style (word expression, pronunciation, body language).

Each of these sections, as stated above, shows the sequence of preparation and development of speech:

1. Invention - the birth of a concept, the creation of ideas, the content of speech. Rhetorical invention is based on common places (topoi), sources of invention. Commonplaces are the basic value and intellectual categories regarding which the speaker reaches agreement with the audience. The moral and ideological life of society is organized by commonplaces as certain judgments that are recognized by everyone. Commonplaces (topoi) are also ways of developing the intent and content of speech. This is a technique for creating and developing speech. Types of common places (or topoi) show how speech about any object or person can be constructed. There are the following common places (topos): 1) definition, 2) parts/whole, 3) genus/species, 4) properties, 5) opposition, 6) name, 7) comparison (similarity, quantity), 8) cause/effect , 9) condition, 10) concession, 11) time, 12) place, 13) evidence, 14) example.

The criticism of topoi - commonplaces - is associated with their formal scholastic use in teaching R. It was the doctrine of commonplaces, and then “all rhetoric” that was criticized in the middle of the 19th century. V.G. Belinsky and K.P. Zelenetsky (the latter, in particular, argued that “it is impossible to invent thoughts”). Nevertheless, the topical structure is found in every speech, and its oblivion sometimes leads to the inability to generate the idea of ​​speech and create texts. Most modern theories of text are based precisely on the topic as a way of describing speech situations (cf. frame theory and many others). Topoi must be known as creative possibilities for the development of thought; when creating speech, those of them that seem appropriate and necessary in a given situation are selected.

2. Arrangement – ​​section on the rules of compositional structure of speech. The invented material must be arranged intelligently, in a certain sequence. The reasonable order of the parts of a speech composition allows you to develop and present ideas in a convincing form. The traditional parts of a speech composition are introduction (address and naming), (), refutation, conclusion. Each of them has strong traditions of description and recommendations in construction - in Russian teachings on speech of the twentieth century. It was precisely the doctrine of compositional parts of speech and style that was preserved.

3. Expression as a verbal form of speech is associated with the search for an appropriate individual style of utterance, without which effective speech influence is impossible. Word expression involves finding the right words and their effective arrangement in figures of speech. The doctrine of verbal expression traditionally described the qualities of speech, types of tropes and figures. Each of the authors of rhetoric usually offers his own vision of the effective use of the stylistic capabilities of vocabulary and stylistic syntax through certain texts selected for teaching. Expression is the main way to decorate speech.

4. Memory was considered a transitional stage to the final performance of speech. Rhetorical teachings usually described methods of remembering and developing memory. In addition to individual abilities and individual techniques, there are universal methods of preparing for the performance of a future speech. The more a rhetorician (any speaker) thinks through the text of a future speech, the richer the treasury of his memory. He can do this in different forms: 1) memorizing with repetition of a written text to himself or out loud (memorization must be distinguished from meaningful, thoughtful pronunciation of the text); 2) repeated writing and editing of the text, which then involuntarily manifests itself in oral reproduction; 3) reading aloud the prepared text with a memorization check; 4) delivering a speech without a written text - independently or in front of someone; 5) reading or speaking a text with a tape recorder and subsequent analysis of one’s own speech.

Memory is trained by constant return to the subject, reflection, repetition, and intense mental work. Each rhetorician is recommended to understand what type of work on the text and speech reproduction is most characteristic of him.

5. The pronunciation and body movement section is considered final in terms of speech preparation, but initial in speech perception. The speaker realizes his speech in pronunciation, but facial expressions, gestures and body movements in general are no less significant. This is the last stage in the implementation of speech, although the listener's perception of speech begins with the speaker's appearance and assessment of his pronunciation style.

Pronunciation and voice management involve the creation of a certain style of pronunciation, including work on the volume (sonority) of speech, tempo and rhythm, pausing, articulation, logical stress, intonation, and timbre of the voice. Good pronunciation is based on breathing control. All of these factors require the rhetorician to exercise and gain practical experience.

The external manners of a speaker are of great importance in representing the personality of the speaker in a speech. A person speaks not only with his tongue, but with his whole body: his hands, feet, turning of his figure, head, facial expressions, etc. “speak.” In a sense, human speech begins with body movement. The child first begins to move his arms and legs, walk, and then utter meaningful sounds. And just as among children the speech of the child who quickly begins to control his body is better developed, so in the art of speech the one who intelligently controls facial expressions and body movements is more skillful.

The most important section of R. is the doctrine of the image of a rhetorician. A rhetorician is any participant in speech, a speaker, a person who influences speech, a master of rhetoric as the art of moral and speech persuasion. Historically, teachers of Rhetoric were also called rhetoricians. An orator is usually called a person who makes oral public speeches; an author is the creator of written texts. In modern R. it is possible to talk about a collective or collegial rhetorician, represented in the work of book publishing houses or the media. Oratorics is a field of rhetoric that studies the rules for creating oral public speeches.

Evaluation of a person’s speech in the perception of his image of a speaker occurs from different sides. First of all, this is a moral and ethical assessment. The audience's trust is possible if it believes that the person in front of them is honest and fair. The audience gives a moral assessment to the speaker: they trust a “good” person, and distrust a “bad” person. At the same time, it is possible that some side may hold false views or interests. Then the speaker has to defend his position, sometimes paying with his head for the discrepancy between his worldview and the views of the audience.

Intelligent the assessment of a rhetorician is associated with the wealth of thoughts, his wisdom, the ability to argue, reason and find original mental solutions. Intelligence usually speaks of the speaker's knowledge of the subject of speech.

Aesthetic the assessment is related to the attitude towards the performance of speech: the clarity and elegance of the thoughts expressed, the beauty of the sound, the originality in the choice of words. If the thought is not expressed in attractive words and appropriate pronunciation, the speech will not be received.

In R., the question was always discussed: what qualities should a speaker have in order to influence the audience not just with words, but with his entire appearance? After all, we can say about each speaker that he has a certain character, personality traits, moral virtues or shortcomings. All these requirements were united by the concept oratorical manners, for the word “character” itself was originally understood as character, spiritual qualities, an internal property of a person.

In each historical era, different qualities of people are valued depending on the ideology of this era and lifestyle. Thus, in ancient rhetoric the following virtues of orators were listed: justice, courage, prudence, generosity, magnanimity, selflessness, meekness, prudence, wisdom (Aristotle, “Rhetoric”). The origin of Christianity is associated with new requirements for man, presupposing in him, on the basis of faith in God, humility, meekness, modesty, patience, hard work, mercy, obedience, attention to the troubles and experiences of other people, the ability to accept another person as himself, which is why every person was called "neighbor". Modern R. names such qualities of a speaker as honesty, knowledge, responsibility, forethought, benevolence, and modesty ( A.A. Volkov). The combination of these qualities builds image of a perfect rhetorician, some rhetorical ideal, which, in principle, is not achievable in any real speaker, but requires striving for it in real speech and speech pedagogy.

Rhetorical pedagogy summarizes the methods and techniques in teaching speech. Classical rhetoric offered the following “means of acquiring eloquence” (according to M.V. Lomonosov): natural talents, knowledge of science (theories of speech), imitation (i.e., focusing on certain exemplary texts ), exercises. As a philosophical and professional basis for R.M.V. Lomonosov calls knowledge of other sciences. Modern speech sets the task of forming a person’s personality through the development of his speech abilities and increasing his speech erudition. At the same time, an optimal balance is required in the correlation of teaching theory and teaching practice. A rhetorician is formed in reading and analyzing texts (the mistake of many modern concepts is training in the ability to “communicate” outside the substantive basis of communication), in real oratorical practice, and educational training. The rhetorician is advised to read a lot, analyze texts, observe exemplary and non-exemplary speakers, and to work on himself to practice recitation of texts and speech techniques (not according to the theatrical “playing” method, but more by shaping the student’s personal oratorical appearance).

IN private rhetoric rules and recommendations for conducting speech in certain types, types and genres of literature are considered. Traditional speech dealt primarily with monologue speech, and we find the first division into types of speech in Aristotle: deliberative speech (political speech aimed at discussing the public good), epideictic speech (congratulatory speech, the purpose of which is praise or blasphemy, and the content is “beautiful” ), judicial speech (the state of the litigants, the purpose of which is to establish the truth, the content is “fair or unfair”). Subsequently, the volume of types of literature subject to description grew, for example, “The Rhetoric of Feofan Prokopovich in 1705, professor of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy,” included a description of congratulatory speeches, church, wedding eloquence, rules for writing letters to various persons and methods of writing history. Professor of Moscow University A.F. Merzlyakov in his “Brief Rhetoric” 1804–1828. examines: a) letters, b) conversations, c) reasoning or educational books, d) true and fictitious history, f) speeches (the latter, according to “content and intention,” were divided into “spiritual, political, judicial, laudable and academic.” Significantly This scheme looks expanded in the rhetoric of the mid-19th century, for example, N.F. Koshansky examines in detail: “1) literature, 2) writing, 3) conversations (philosophical, dramatic, etc., but not everyday dialogue), 4) storytelling, 5) oratory, 6) learning." In the second half of the 19th century. with the replacement of literature by the theory and history of literature, oral folk art was added to the types of literature studied, but the study of texts was increasingly limited to works of fine art or art. literature.

Today we have to talk about different types of professional speech as sections of private speech. The main intellectual professions in society are associated with active speech, because speech is the main means of organizing and managing the life of society. The basic types of speeches (oratory eloquence) continue to be political, judicial, pedagogical, preaching, military, diplomatic, and journalistic rhetoric. Each type of professional art requires its own “rhetoric” (cf. medical or trade speech, business speech in various manifestations), and the training of a specialist is impossible without speech training, which is a means of expressing professional knowledge and skills.

The history of Russian R. is remarkable, revealing a direct connection with ideological and stylistic transformations in the history of Russian society. Rhetorics are usually written, and rhetorical activity is intensified during periods of revolutionary social renewal. Each rhetorical period lasts 50–70 years (the age of human life), including 10–15 years of transformation, the establishment of a social speech style, stagnation and ripening criticism.

The optimization of rhetoric as a science and art, the organization of rhetorical education and upbringing are the most important tasks facing not only modern philological science, but also society as a whole, since all public actions are organized and expressed in speech activity.

Lit.: Lomonosov M.V. A Brief Guide to Eloquence: Complete. collection Op. – M.; L., 1951. T. 7.; Cicero Marcus Fabius. Three treatises on oratory. – M., 1972; Ancient rhetoric / Edited by A.A. Tahoe-Godi. – M., 1978; Vompersky V.P. Rhetorics in Russia in the 17th–17th centuries. – M., 1988; Khazagerov T.G., Shirina L.S. General rhetoric. Course of lectures and dictionary of rhetorical figures. – Rostov n/d., 1994; Rhetoric. Specialized problem magazine. – 1995–1997. – No. 1–4; Volkov A.A. Fundamentals of Russian rhetoric. – M., 1996; His: A course of Russian rhetoric. – M., 2001; Graudina L.K. Russian rhetoric: Reader. – M., 1996; Graudina L.K., Kochetkova G.I. Russian rhetoric. – M., 2001; Mikhalskaya A.K. Fundamentals of rhetoric: Thought and word. – M., 1996; Hers: Pedagogical rhetoric: history and theory. – M., 1998; Ivanova S.F. Speak! Lessons in developing rhetoric. – M., 1997; Annushkin V.I. History of Russian rhetoric: Reader. – M., 1998; His: The first Russian "Rhetoric" of the 17th century. - M., 1999; The subject of rhetoric and the problems of its teaching. Dokl. 1st All-Russian conf. on rhetoric. – M., 1998; Rozhdestvensky Yu.V. Principles of modern rhetoric. – M., 1999; His: Theory of Rhetoric. – M., 1999.

IN AND. Annushkin

Stylistic encyclopedic dictionary of the Russian language. - M:. "Flint", "Science". Edited by M.N. Kozhina. 2003 .

Synonyms:

See what “Rhetoric” is in other dictionaries:

RHETORIC- (Greek rhetorike) 1) the science of oratory and, more broadly, of artistic prose in general. Consisted of 5 parts: finding the material, arrangement, verbal expression (the doctrine of 3 styles: high, medium and low and 3 means of elevating the style... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

RHETORIC- (from Greek rhetorike) oratory. In ancient times, through its influence on the education of youth, social life, and various forms of literature, rhetoric functioned as a predecessor to pedagogy and a rival to philosophy. Last... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

rhetoric- Cm … Synonym dictionary

Rhetoric- Rhetoric ♦ Rhétorique The art of discourse (as opposed to eloquence as the art of speech) aimed at persuasion. Rhetoric subordinates form with all its possibilities of persuasion to content, that is, thought. For example, forms such as chiasmus... ... Sponville's Philosophical Dictionary

RHETORIC- (Greek rhetorike), 1) the science of oratory and, more broadly, of artistic prose in general. Consisted of 5 parts: finding material, arrangement, verbal expression (the doctrine of 3 styles high, medium, low and 3 means of elevation... ... Modern encyclopedia

RHETORIC- (rhetoric) Using the persuasive power of words. Until the 18th century rhetoric was one of the main subjects in European universities, along with theology, natural and spiritual sciences and law. Subsequently, with the development of empirical and... Political science. Dictionary.

Nowadays there is a large exchange of information in the world, and it is completely diverse, and the exchange is carried out in various ways. In modern times, no matter how sad it may be, all live communication has been replaced by the Internet and social networks. A person of the 21st century lives in a world of great opportunities, innovative technologies, so to speak, keeps up with the times, and everything seems to be good, progress does not stand still, but, one big but, along with all this, the ability to correctly and correctly disappears somewhere. speak beautifully, express your thoughts. Many people have long stopped paying attention to basic grammatical or punctuation errors that are made when writing something, since this has become the norm. The same thing happens in oral speech. Sometimes a person speaks and does not seem to understand what he is trying to convey to his listener. In this case, there is no need to even talk about the listener; naturally, he will not understand anything. This is the whole problem with modern society. There are so many words in the language to say what you think about, what you dream about, what you want to do, but many cannot connect even two words to clearly express their thoughts.

It is from this moment that the question arises: “What then is correct verbal communication? And what should it be?” It’s a truism that you need to speak not just coherently and correctly, but also beautifully. But few can boast that they were taught the art of eloquence and that they possess it. An item likerhetoric, they are not taught in all schools, and even if they include it in the curriculum, they often cannot find good teachers. Simply put, beautiful speech for most people is something they supposedly need to learn, but do not know how and where to do it. We decided to devote a series of articles to this important topic - rhetoric, as the ability to speak correctly and beautifully.

It is important for every person to be able to communicate, since such a skill is a good assistant in many life situations. Almost all successes in school, work, and personal life are built on communication skills. If the information is presented by the speaker in a concise and structured manner, then it will reach the listeners in the best possible way. The science that studies all the details of oratory is called rhetoric. It is thanks to her that you can make your speech clear and convincing.

Rhetoric helps to give speech clarity, specificity, and persuasiveness.

And correct speech communication or oral communication activity, as defined by A.V. Sokolova (born in 1934, a specialist in the field of social communications), “there is spiritual communication of social subjects.” Even in ancient times, Aristotle, whose role in the development of classical rhetoric was most significant, answered this question as follows:

“Any speech is composed of three elements: from the speaker himself, from the subject he is talking about, and from the person to whom he is addressing; this is the ultimate goal of everything; (I mean the listener).” [ 1 ]

And here the question arises: “Is Aristotle’s statement relevant today?” The answer to this question is multifaceted. But first, let us turn to the origins of rhetoric.

Rhetoric in ancient times

The origin of rhetoric began in ancient Greece. Due to the fact that democracy was being formed in this state, the ability to persuade gained considerable popularity in society.

Every resident of the city had the opportunity to undergo public speaking training, which was taught bysophists.These sages considered rhetoric to be the science of persuasion, which studies ways of verbally defeating an opponent. Because of this, the word “sophism” subsequently caused a negative reaction. After all, under them, rhetoric was viewed as a trick, an invention, although even earlier this science was considered the highest skill, skill.

In Ancient Greece, many works were created that revealed rhetoric. The author of the classic Greek treatise on this science is the famous thinker Aristotle.

This work, called “Rhetoric,” distinguished oratory from all other sciences. It defined the principles on which speech should be based and indicated the methods used as evidence. Thanks to this treatise, Aristotle became the founder of rhetoric as a science.

In Ancient Rome, Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 - 43 BC), who was involved in politics, philosophy and oratory, contributed to the development of rhetoric. He created a work called "Brutus or on the Famous Orators", describing the development of science in the names of popular speakers. He also wrote a work “On the Speaker,” in which he talked about what kind of speech behavior a worthy speaker should have.

Then Cicero created the book “The Orator”, which reveals the basics of eloquence.

Cicero considered rhetoric the most complex science, unlike others. He argued that in order to become a worthy speaker, a person must have deep knowledge in all areas of life. Otherwise, he simply will not be able to maintain a dialogue with another person.

Marcus Fabius Quintilian, in his 12-book work “Rhetorical Instructions,” analyzed rhetoric, adding his own conclusions regarding all its components. He valued the clarity of style and the speaker’s ability to awaken emotions in listeners. He defined rhetoric as “the science of speaking well.” Quintilian also added to the teachings of rhetoric by pointing out the importance of the non-verbal component.

In the Middle Ages, rhetoric began to be calledhomiletics, church eloquence and, of course, changed the appearance and internal content. Now eloquence was aimed at glorifying God and his greatness, and also at proving the existence of a higher power exclusively speculatively, in theory, in words.

Development of rhetoric in Russia

Rhetoric in Russia arose on the basis of Roman science. Unfortunately, it was not always in such demand. Over time, when political and social regimes changed, the need for it was perceived differently.

Development of Russian rhetoric in stages:

• Ancient Rus' (before 988). Life-giving is an intrasocial function of life-speech. This is obvious to those who remember that the letter “Zh” in the Slavic alphabet has the name “Live”. The conceptual root “speech” (speech as an expression of thought) is directly present in both words, which indicates a very serious attitude to what is said by the individual. Even the letter “R” had the name “rtsy”. And “Rtsy” is a form of the imperative mood, similar in meaning to the current “river”. So the priesthood had to have the power (in the sense that words should not remain without consequences corresponding to their meaning) to “speak” about how society should live and how it should solve the problems that arise in its life, and what will happen if it lives otherwise it will not solve problems.
• Rus' of the Kyiv period (XII - XVII centuries). During this period, the term “rhetoric” and educational books on it did not yet exist. But even then and before, some of its rules certainly applied. People at that time called the ethics of speech eloquence, eloquence, piety or rhetoric. Teaching the art of the word was carried out on the basis of liturgical texts created by preachers. For example, one of these collections is “The Bee,” written in the 13th century.
• First half of the 17th century. During this period, an important landmark event was the publication of the first Russian textbook, revealing the basics of rhetoric.
• The end of the 17th - the beginning and middle of the 18th century. At this stage, the book “Rhetoric”, written by Mikhail Usachev, was published. Many works were also created, such as “Old Believer Rhetoric”, works “Poetics”, “Ethics”, several lectures on the rhetorical art of Feofan Prokopovich.

M.V. Lomonosov - “Rhetoric”

• XVIII century. At this time, the formation of rhetoric as a Russian science took place, to which Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov made a huge contribution. He wrote several works dedicated to it, of which the book “Rhetoric” became the basis for the development of this science.
• Beginning and mid-19th century. This period is characterized by the fact that there was a rhetorical boom in the country. Famous authors published a large number of textbooks. These include the works of I.S. Rizhsky, N.F. Koshansky, A.F. Merzlyakova, A.I. Galich, K.P. Zelensky, M.M. Speransky.
• However, starting from the second half of the century, this science begins to actively supplant literature. Soviet people studied stylistics, linguistics, speech culture, and less - rhetoric.

What is the situation with rhetoric in our time?

In some places it is taught and is not an elective, but a compulsory discipline. However, this, alas, does not reduce the tongue-tiedness and basic inability to speak publicly. Sociologists once asked respondents what they were most afraid of. The answers were quite predictable - serious illness or death: both our own and those close to us. Indeed, we often find ourselves powerless against this scourge. But in second place, with a very small margin from the fear of death, is... the fear of public speaking. Strange and unexpected? This is another way to say...

Remember yourself during your school years. When at the beginning of the lesson the homework check began and someone was certainly called to the board. How did you feel when your name was called? Even when I was ready and confident in myself, excitement and even panic still began. You walk to the board - and it seems that your steps are echoing loudly in the silence, and your heart is pounding as if it is trying to jump out of your chest. Give or take - you are going to execution. So there were fears, and what other ones!

From these half-childish fears follows the first need for rhetoric as a way to gain confidence in one’s abilities. After all, if you figure out why some people are afraid to open their mouths at the blackboard, why are they overcome by muteness, although they know everything or almost everything? They simply do not have the skill of coherent, competent, beautiful speech - all those skills that rhetoric teaches.

And when there is also chaos in the head, in thoughts, then in oral, in spoken speech there will be the same confusion. If you cannot formulate the theses of your future speech orally, in theory, you will almost certainly get lost and confused in practice. So the sooner and more holistically the worldview and system of our views is formed, the better for us. And then your head will be clear.

In general, it is enough to ask yourself a simple question: what will happen if you cannot perform adequately and fail miserably? The world will not disappear. We must understand that any experience is valuable, including negative ones. In short, you can gain more than you can lose. And there are plenty of ways to get rid of fears.

Secondly, rhetoric is simply irreplaceable when we go through the process of primary and, especially, secondary socialization - from family to friendly company, school and university, not to mention adult, independent life. Everyone around us helps us decide on life - and doing this most often not with the help of non-verbal means of communication, but through the living word. There is no complete replacement for him, and it is unlikely that one will ever be found. If you do not acquire the skills of successful communication and meaningful communication in time, you are unlikely to achieve anything significant in life. So you will, as they say, stew in your own juice, you will be dumb as a fish, and you will begin to frantically swallow grievances mixed with anger and envy at the world around you - they say, I am so wonderful, but I was underestimated, not noticed. It's better to act! How Demosthenes did it - the greatest orator of antiquity. After all, he didn’t show any hope, but he overcame his weaknesses - physical and spiritual - and became what he became. So there is someone to look up to.

When experienced trainers in the field of rhetoric begin to ask the audience who and why wants to learn how to speak well in public, many are disingenuous and rush to hide behind beautiful phrases like “I want a promotion” or “I want to influence others.” All these remarks have their share of truth, but not all of it. And the whole secret, or rather, the lack of one, is that many people secretly want to enjoy the very process of speaking and the effect it produces. They are only embarrassed or afraid to admit it - to themselves and to people.

So, thirdly, there is little that compares to the pleasure of a successful public speaking, especially when you get a taste for this business. Just imagine in the foreseeable future - they listen to you with ever-increasing attention, people greedily catch your every word, the contact between you and the audience is strong and stable, the mood is friendly. Of course, you still need to grow and reach such an almost ideal situation. But here, too, everything is in our hands.

Fourthly, the power of a word increases many times over when this word is public, heard, and then picked up by many. Moreover, if this word comes from a person who is competent in many matters, who behaves confidently and calmly, maintains a sense of self-esteem, is friendly towards the audience and does not rise above it. A good speaker, and part-time psychologist or teacher, educator is a godsend for any company, educational institution, or team.

Finally, for those who dream of a career and financial success, the word is also a powerful lever and tool for influencing the minds and feelings of people. Of course, not all of us can be great speakers - some need to sow, and plow, and build, and make something with their own hands - but the boss and leader who does not go into his pocket for words, who has a speech, whoever has the gift of persuasion and charm is no longer just a boss and leader, but a real charismatic leader, whom people will follow to the ends of the earth. If we delve into history that is not so distant from us, and read memoirs, we will find out what wonderful speakers Napoleon Bonaparte, Trotsky, Hitler and Mussolini were. At the same time, they do not cease to be great dictators and villains. That is why it is important to skillfully manage your influence and not use it to harm. So the poet Vladimir Mayakovsky is three times right when he called the word “commander of human power” (“To Sergei Yesenin”, 1926).

And the word is the main tool of the speaker, given to him from God or from nature. And those who have taken up rhetoric seriously and for a long time will never ask why it is needed.

Afterword

There is a science in the world that has a proud name - rhetoric. It’s a pity, of course, but there are people who don’t know about its existence or its significance. So it is rhetoric that deals with issues of correct and beautiful speech, in the simplest language. It is rhetoric that sorts out mistakes in communication. In our opinion, it would not hurt to introduce it as a compulsory subject in schools. It’s just that, looking at today’s younger generation, it’s clear that many could definitely use it.

And in conclusion, returning to the question of the relevance of Aristotle’s statement, we can say that it is more than relevant. After all, if you think about it, being well prepared, having a decent vocabulary, being able to collect your thoughts into a single whole and convey them to the audience, taking into account the characteristics of the audience, is very hard work. But feasible. After all, as Cicero said:

“Eloquence is something that is more difficult than it seems, and is born from a lot of knowledge and effort.”

It was no coincidence that he put effort after knowledge. Only by understanding well why this or that knowledge is needed will a person try to master it.

Well, even if not all of us master the art of eloquence, we can and should speak beautifully, correctly, politely and clearly. This is precisely why Aristotle’s statement is still relevant today. People are gradually forgetting how to speak as they were supposed to, and no matter how sad it may be, the fact remains a fact. But it’s in our power to fix everything. At least on a personal level. Is not it?

In the following articles on rhetoric, we will provide both instructive stories and techniques for improving your public speaking skills.

The science of eloquence appeared in ancient times. Today, the question of what rhetoric is is considered from three sides:

3. An academic discipline that studies the basics of public speaking.

The subject of rhetoric is the special rules for constructing and delivering a speech in order to convince the audience that the speaker is right.

Russia has always had rich rhetorical traditions. Oratory practice already in Ancient Rus' was very diverse and stood out for its high level of skill. The 12th century is recognized as the golden age in Ancient Rus' for eloquence. The first textbooks in Rus' about what rhetoric is appeared in the 17th century. These were “The Tale of the Seven Wisdoms” and “Rhetoric”. They set out the basics of rhetorical teaching: what rhetoric is, who a rhetorician is and his duties; how to prepare a speech, what it is like. In the 18th century, a number of textbooks were already published, among them the fundamental scientific work “Rhetoric” by Lomonosov.

3. Speech law.

4. Law of communication.

Speech is realized in different forms, such as monologue, dialogue and polylogue. Depending on what goal the speaker has set for himself, it is divided into types:

1. Informative - introducing listeners to certain information and facts, which will allow them to form an impression about its subject.

2. Persuasive - conviction of the correctness of one’s position.

3. Arguing - proof of your point of view.

4. Emotional-evaluative - expresses one’s negative or positive assessment.

5. Inviting - through speech, listeners are encouraged to do something.

Is it possible to become a speaker

?

When faced with the task of speaking to an audience, in which you need to convince the audience of something, a person begins to think - what is rhetoric? Is it possible to become a good speaker? Opinions differ on this matter. Some people believe that a talented speaker must have a natural gift. Others say that you can become a good speaker if you train a lot and improve yourself. This debate has been going on for many years, almost the entire history of oratory.

But in any case, the speaker must know the basics of rhetoric, not only its most common techniques, but also individual findings, which will help make the speech bright and at the same time accessible. How to prepare, how to present it, how to correctly conclude a speech - these are the questions that first arise for a novice wordsmith.