Russian language lesson

(double lesson-discussion)

Grade 11

Russian language teachers

and literature

GOU TsO No. 879

Mordan Natalia Yurievna

Lesson topic: Speech culture: you can’t forget to teach!

Lesson type: discussion lesson

The purpose of the lesson : during the discussion, identify different points of view on the problem of preserving the culture of speech and determine ways to solve this problem

Lesson Objectives : - develop the ability to conduct a discussion, the ability to convincingly and convincingly defend your point of view on the problem;

Prepare students to write part C of the Unified State Exam on the problem of preserving speech culture;

Stimulate students' speech activity;

Create conditions for the development of communication skills;

Develop creative abilities;

Foster a culture of behavior during a dispute, a respectful attitude towards the interlocutor;

Cultivate a love for your native language.

Preliminary

Preparation : the class is divided into groups, each group chooses a leader and works in a certain direction:

1. “Defenders” - the group selects arguments “for” speech culture;

2. “Opponents” - the group selects arguments “against” the culture of speech;

3. “Sociologists” - a) conducts a sociological survey “Compliance with the norms of the literary Russian language” among school graduates and teachers;

B) conducts a sociological survey “Causes of clogging and coarsening of Russian speech”;

4. “Theorists” - publish a linguistic newspaper about the problems of speech culture

5. “Actors” - they stage M. Zoshchenko’s story “Monkey Language”;

6. “Experts” - invited teachers at the end of the lesson express their opinion on the problem and evaluate the students’ performances.

Class decoration: - exhibition of books on speech culture;

Linguistic newspaper;

TCO: - multimedia projector for showing a presentation by a group of sociologists;

Video double for showing a fragment from the film “12 Chairs”

During the classes

I. Organizing time

Greetings to all those gathered in the discussion club: eleventh graders and teachers

II. Updating the topic

All year we have been persistently preparing for the Unified State Exam: we repeated the Russian language course, practiced “trap” questions, wrote diagnostic papers... A lot has already been achieved, but as soon as it comes to part C, difficulties arise: it’s hard to find a problem in the text, comment on it, and also it is more difficult to argue your point of view on the problem, especially if we are talking about the problem of the loss of speech culture.

The culture of speech has been largely lost not only in everyday communication, but even in the language of literature. It is no coincidence that at the All-Russian meeting on problems of the Russian language (2002) it was said: “If we lose the Russian language, we will lose the national heritage of our country.” But there is another point of view: the Russian language wants diversity, it is a hospitable host who accepts all guests, even if they are ugly. Today we have gathered to discuss one question: “Do you need to speak and write correctly or does everyone have the right to structure their speech the way they want?”

III. Speech by “theorists”

Speech culture is a special branch of the science of language, the main result of the study of which should be the ability to speak and write correctly; it organically includes all the elements that contribute to the accurate, clear and emotional transmission of thought.

The ability to speak and write beautifully has long been considered a distinctive feature of a cultured, educated person. It is no coincidence that we judge people by their speech: if he speaks well, he is smart; he has moral and business qualities; if he cannot express a thought correctly, he is narrow-minded.

The culture of speech of an individual person reflects his general cultural level - education, good manners, ability to control himself, the ability to understand people of other cultures, sensitivity to works of art, modesty...

The content of speech is very important. Empty chatter cannot be a role model. The dignity of any work and speech is accuracy, clarity and simplicity of speech. Eloquence is also incompatible with poverty of vocabulary. The problem of purity of speech warns us against unjustified enthusiasm for dialectisms, jargon, and foreign words. And a prerequisite for good speech is compliance with all the norms and rules of the Russian language.

But in the last decade, an extremely low culture of speech has emerged: people have been unable to express their thoughts clearly and intelligibly. An avalanche of errors poured into us. As the great Russian educator, Academician D.S. Likhachev, said in one of his last interviews, “the general degradation of us as a nation affected the language first of all.”

Our language is sick. And the causes of the disease are obvious: poor vocabulary, especially among teenagers; loss of interest in classical literature and art in the age of computerization; the absence of prohibitions or at least criticism from many adults when using profanity, slang and foreign words.

Is it worth treating your tongue? Or let everything remain as it is?

IV. Presentation by “sociologists”

Results of the survey “Causes of clogging and coarsening of Russian speech”

Results of the survey “Compliance with the norms of the literary Russian language”

V. Discussion

1. Norms

From the first grade we study Russian, which we have already spoken since childhood. Maybe, indeed, we are fighting in vain: just say “ringing” and t", "shav e l." What is this all for? The Czech writer Jaroslav Hasek once said: “Everyone speaks as best he can.” Is it really necessary to comply with all the norms of the literary Russian language? A word to the opponents of the norm.

"Adversaries"

Linguists themselves say that many words have variations in pronunciation, stress, grammatical forms, etc. These options exist objectively in the language system. This means that the language itself wants diversity, it invites us to choose. Why should everyone speak and write the same way and reduce linguistic diversity to dull correctness? Stop talking in unison. Everyone has the right to their opinion. Let him choose from several options what he personally likes (we will still understand each other, because our native language programmed these options). Only by abolishing the norm will we get not a gray mass devoid of individuality, but a union of bright personalities. We are for pluralism in speech practice, because it is boring when everyone speaks the same way, correctly. Let us remember Pushkin: “Like rosy lips without a smile, without a grammatical error, I don’t like Russian speech.” What do you say to this?

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

"Defenders"

References to pluralism and freedom of choice in the issue of language norms are inappropriate. Speech uniformity is a condition for our mutual understanding. Formulated according to rules common to everyone, speech does not complicate communication, but facilitates it. Failure to comply with the norm distracts from the meaning and can cause a comic effect. By the way, our satirists feel this very well: you just have to distort a word a little, pronounce it differently than is customary in society, and it immediately becomes funny.

A civilized person understands that he does not live on a desert island, but in a society; he accepts social norms as his own in order to facilitate his contacts with people.

Linguists do not invent, but only reflect the norm that society sets for various reasons. Linguists do not follow their taste or personal opinion, but rely on objective data: written sources of various genres, statistical studies, recordings of oral speech, taking into account public opinion. By the way, often the norm allows not one, but two completely equal options. So the norm is democratic, it takes into account our desires.

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

2. Vulgarisms

Standardized literary language does not allow us to use vulgar words. But now they are heard more and more often, and not only are they heard, but they are also found in the media and even in works of fiction. What do you think, are swear words acceptable in our speech?

"Defenders"

"Adversaries"

And yet, vulgarisms should be classified as means that are alien to the literary language and the requirements of morality, since they humiliate the dignity and honor of a person, and directly and unequivocally insult people.

3. The richness of Russian speech

The Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language (it consists of 17 volumes) contains more than 120 thousand words. In fact, there are much more of them, since not all words that are in the language are noted in dictionaries. Is it possible for every Russian person to use all these words? Is diverse vocabulary really necessary? Maybe we can make do with 30 words, as the heroine of the famous movie did?

Watching an excerpt from the film “12 Chairs” (conversation between Ellochka the cannibal and her husband)

"Adversaries"

"Defenders"

So, the richness of speech testifies to the speaker’s erudition and high intelligence. The more words a person knows, the more diverse his language, the more accurately the speaker expresses his thoughts. Such people evoke sympathy, it is pleasant to have a conversation with them, we dream of such friends.

4. Purity of speech

Dramatization of M. Zoshchenko’s story “Monkey Language”

"Defenders"

"Adversaries"

The Russian language is truly great! He accepts everything, responds to everything, moreover, he absorbs foreign words and teaches them to produce new forms. The Russian language is still “powerful, truthful and free.” We just spoil it ourselves, forgetting that it is alive, so there is no need to offend it with vulgarity, other people’s rubbish, profanity, clerical delights, and incompatible mishmash.

VI. Word from the experts

While the group leaders are preparing the test sheets, we will listen to the opinions of experts

Whose position was more convincing today?

What point of view on the problem of speech culture do you adhere to?

I ask the group leaders to hand in the test sheets

VII. Final word from the teacher

Very soon you will become school graduates, enter adulthood, you are responsible for the present and future of the Russian language. Listen. Think. Decide. What will it be like? Treat your native word as a “priceless gift”, as a treasure, let them always say about you: “This is a cultured person.” What kind of a cultured person is he? This is a person who has a culture of feelings, a culture of communication, who knows how to speak and write correctly, beautifully and expressively.

V. G. Rasputin said something remarkable about the power of the Russian word in the story “Ivan’s Daughter, Ivan’s Mother”: “It is contained in you in the necessary completeness, knowing the true value of everything in the world; when it cries, this word, carried away with bitter tears into the crowd of Russian women, when it thunders with solemn brass on the days of victories and capital holidays; when it unmistakably knows at what moments to speak passionately and at what moments tenderly. When you have this omnipotent native word next to your heart and soul, nourished with native blood, then you cannot make a mistake. It, this word, is stronger than the anthem and flag, oath and vow. Since ancient times, it has been an inviolable oath and oath in itself. If it is there, everything else is there, but if it is not, there will be nothing to anchor the most sincere impulses with.”

When you read these lines, you understand how sensitively Valentin Grigorievich perceives the word, how the writer strives to change the attitude towards the Russian word, towards his native language.

I would like to end the conversation with words from a poem by T. Zumakulova:

Two rivers flow in the heart without growing shallow,
They become one river...
Having forgotten my native language, I will go numb.
Having lost Russian, I will become deaf.

To prevent this from happening, we need to talk about these problems. You will do this in writing.

VIII. Homework

You are offered a text. Write an essay on it in the form of Part C of the Unified State Examination. Express your opinion on one of the problems posed by the author of the text; when arguing your point of view, you can use the lesson materials collected in a separate folder.

Usually at the end of a discussion it is customary to put a full stop. But I suggest you use a comma today. Try to guess where we should put a comma (students suggest where to put a comma: in the title of the lesson, which is written on the board: “Culture of speech: teach, you can’t forget!”)

Annex 1

Sociological survey

“Compliance with the norms of the literary Russian language”

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

Sociological survey

“Reasons for the clogging and coarsening of Russian speech”

What do you think of what is proposed most clogs and coarsens our speech? Arrange the numbers in order of greatest harm to speech (ascending)

1. The dominance of jargon

2. Scarcity and monotony of vocabulary

3. Foul language and swearing are encouraged in colloquial speech.

4. Frequent violations of language norms are observed among journalists and announcers, whose speech was previously considered exemplary

5. Excessive use of foreign words

6. "Office"

Appendix 2

(1) Ecology is the science of the interaction of living organisms and their communities with each other and with the environment in which they live.
(2) These relationships are studied by a variety of sciences: biology and chemistry, astronomy and cosmology, mathematics and philosophy.
(3) All of them contribute to ecology, which today has been divided into a number of independent disciplines: general ecology, agroecology, hydroecology, human ecology, etc.
(4) The ecology of culture, or spiritual ecology, is actively being formed these days.
(5) Of course, there cannot be an impassable gap between the ecology of nature and the ecology of culture, but at the same time there is a big difference between them.
(6) Losses in nature can be restored to a certain extent.
(7) Cultural and moral values ​​are another matter.
(8) They are either restored with great difficulty, or disappear altogether, like, say, destroyed cultural monuments, burnt books, manuscripts...
(9) Historian-archaeologist V.L. Yanin revealed the content of the concept “ecology of culture” in such a figurative manner.
(10) If you uproot a tree, you can grow a new one in its place.
(11) But if we destroy antiquity, cultural monuments, erase historical names from the map, thereby, according to the scientist, we destroy the genetic code of our historical memory.
(12) Therefore, our love for the spiritual heritage of our people must be effective. (13) Much depends on the attitude towards language.
(14) It cannot be otherwise! (15) Indeed.
(16) If culture is the totality of the achievements of society in the field of science, education, and art, then these achievements are consolidated, as a rule, in language, in the Word.
(17) Having emerged at a certain historical stage, the literary language itself serves as evidence of the level of spiritual development of the people and society.
(18) Love of language, like love of nature, is an integral part of patriotism, love of the Motherland.
(19) The ecology of language therefore also has a moral side.
(20) A careless attitude towards language, a departure from the national culture that is expressed in it, does not pass without leaving a mark on a person as an individual.
(21) After all, language is both the basis of national memory and the key to understanding the spiritual world, one’s own and that of others.
(22) In recent years, our writers and publicists have tirelessly spoken with alarm about the signs of spiritual degradation, spiritual impoverishment, directly related to language losses.
(23) Just as every living thing on earth cannot come to terms with its death, so a living nation cannot come to terms with the degradation of its language. (According to L.I. Skvortsov)

students of group 406

Faculty of Zoological Engineering

Livadina Lyubov Vladimirovna

Discussion. Methods of conducting discussions. Speech culture when conducting discussions.

Our life one way or another contains various forms of manifestation of disputes and discussions. Of particular importance are professional discussions, which should lead to the resolution of certain professional issues, etc. In this regard, the question of how to properly conduct discussions arises. This primarily concerns the psychology of discussion, the logical and linguistic culture of discussions.

Basic rules of discussion.

1. Everyone expresses their thoughts openly.

2. All points of view must be respected.

3. Listen to others without interrupting.

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

5. Only one person speaks at a time.

6. Follow positive ideas.

7. Don't criticize yourself and others.

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

Notes:

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

2. Comments regarding violations should not be rude or offensive.

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

Forms of organizing discussion

"Decision tree" (method of all possible options)

The essence of the method and its purpose:

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

The participants in the discussion understand the mechanics of making complex decisions, and the appointee records the advantages and disadvantages of each of them in columns with great accuracy. During the discussion, the discussants fill out the table.

Discussion methodology:

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

2. Participants are provided with basic information on the problem, historical facts, dates, events, etc.

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

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

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

TV talk show style discussion

The essence of the method and its purpose:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion "Brainstorm"

The essence of the method and its purpose:

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

The principle of brainstorming is simple. You gather a group of discussion participants,

give them a task and ask all participants to express their opinions on solving this task: no one has the right to express their thoughts at this stage about the ideas of others or evaluate them.

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

Discussion methodology:

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

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

put your imagination to work;

do not discard any idea just because it contradicts conventional wisdom;

develop the ideas of other participants;

do not try to evaluate the proposed ideas - you will do that a little later.

2. The presenter appoints a secretary who will write down all the ideas that

arise, ensure that the rules are not violated, and intervene if necessary. The first stage lasts until new ideas appear.

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

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

The essence of the method and its purpose:

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

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

Methodology.

The topic must be formulated in the form of resolutions.

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

3. Preparation of class participants. Discussants must prepare “constructive arguments” (based on 3-5 points, logically presented and supported by facts). They must try to imagine what their opponent's arguments will be and prepare to rebut those arguments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speech culture when conducting discussions

After logic and organization of discussion, speech culture has an important place. After all, not many people know how to observe basic speech culture during an argument. This primarily concerns the use of harmless, diplomatic formulations, etc., this concerns the ability to express one’s opinion succinctly, and to avoid ambiguous interpretation of one’s statements and positions.

During a discussion, disputants often find themselves in difficult situations and try to find some way out of them.

1. They often try to “delay the objection” unnoticed by the opponent. For this purpose, they begin the answer from afar, with something not directly related to the given question; refute secondary arguments, and then, gathering strength, smash the main arguments of the opponent.

2. When a polemicist does not want to admit his mistakes openly, he resorts to speech patterns that allow him to soften and correct the situation: “That’s not what I wanted to say”; “These words did not accurately express my thought”; “Let me clarify my position,” etc.

Unscrupulous polemicists who want to make the dispute easier for themselves and make it more difficult for their opponents resort to impermissible tricks.

As a rule, these tricks contain elements of cunning and outright deception. They display a rude, disrespectful attitude towards their opponent.

Such tricks include the following:

"Bet on false shame." For example, having brought an unsaid or even false conclusion, the opponent accompanies it with the phrases: “You, of course, know that science has long established...”; “Don’t you still know?”

"Greasing the argument." A weak argument that can be easily rebutted is accompanied by a compliment to the opponent. In such cases they say the following: “You, as an intelligent person, will not deny...”, etc.

Using references to your age, education, and position as arguments in disputes. Quite often we come across the following reasoning: “If you live to be my age, then judge,” etc.

The bet is to divert the conversation.

The bet is to shift the conversation to the contradiction between word and deed.

Translation of the question into the point of view of benefit or harm.

In a public dispute, suggestion has a great influence. That is why you should not succumb to such a common trick as a self-confident, peremptory, decisive tone.

Ridicule, the desire to cut off the opponent’s speech, an expression of distrust of his words, a sharp negative assessment of his statements, an offensive remark, insult and obstruction - all these are negative tricks designed to inspire and psychologically influence the participants in the dispute.

Four rules for successful dispute management:

Get to the heart of the statement.

Create a positive atmosphere.

Don't humiliate, don't hurt your pride.

Avoid "confusing" emotions.

Keep it simple.

Get your way.

Don't let it lead you astray.

Don't be afraid of mistakes.

Focus on mutual victory.

In accordance with the classification of argumentation proposed by Aristotle, four types of discussion are distinguished:

1. Apodictic discussion is a discussion with the aim of achieving the truth. Such a discussion follows logical rules of inference.
2. A dialectical discussion is a discussion that claims only to achieve verisimilitude.
3. Eristic discussion is a discussion with the goal of persuading an opponent to one’s opinion (or an argument for the sake of argument).
4. Sophistic discussion (sophistic dispute) - a discussion with the goal of winning by any means. In such a discussion, logical tricks are used - sophistry (including those based on manipulating the meaning of a word), misleading the interlocutor, etc.

2. Discussion culture

Discussion is a public discussion of any controversial issue or problem. The two most important characteristics of a discussion that distinguish it from other types of dispute are publicity (presence of an audience) and argumentation. When discussing a controversial (debatable) problem, each side, opposing the opinion of the interlocutor, argues for its position.

The discussion plan is usually as follows:

I. Beginning. At the beginning of the discussion, it is important for the moderators to encourage conversation, to “start up” the discussion participants, to “inflame passions.” This can be facilitated by the presenter’s introductory speech, the posing of a series of pressing questions, the speech of the “propaganda team,” etc.

II. The actual discussion is a public discussion of the problem. Discussion is largely a spontaneous and unpredictable matter. It is difficult to immediately determine how it will unfold and what opinions will prevail. A lot depends on the composition of the participants in the discussion, on their psychological mood, on the social situation, on the place and time of the discussion. But much also depends on the organizers and presenters, on their erudition, moral qualities, ability to contact teenagers, ability to listen, argue, control themselves and manage the discussion. Each new discussion, even on the same issue, will necessarily be different from the previous ones.

III. Completion. The discussion ends with a common decision and recommendations. The presenters give their final word, highlighting the main ideas of the conversation and placing emphasis. It is necessary to thank the participants.

Rules of discussion

1. The rule of respect for a person is the basic rule of discussion. The attitude towards people (both those present and those absent) during the discussion is invariably attentive, polite, and respectful. We try not to offend a person in any way, much less offend. We accept a person as he is, without any conditions. It means the same to us whether a person thinks like everyone else or thinks differently.

2. The rule of attentive listening. We remember that listening and hearing are not the same thing. You need to try to understand the person who is speaking, even if you do not agree with his opinion. During a discussion, the law is the same: everyone listens, only one speaks. Replies from the floor are accepted, but speakers are not interrupted.

3. Free microphone rule. Anyone can speak, but only after the speaker finishes speaking or the speaking time has expired. The presenter has the exclusive right to pass the microphone to someone. If the presenter does not pass the microphone to anyone, then the first one to “take it” is the one who got ready earlier than others (raised his hand) and is closest to the one who finished his speech.

4. Rule of two minutes for speaking. A free microphone can be “held in one hand” for no longer than two minutes. During this time, you can have time to say the main thing.

5. The rule of logic and reasoning. The best speech is one that is well thought out, coherently presented and convincingly argued. The best arguments are facts and logic. Speakers try to express their thoughts clearly and understandably.

6. Rule of honest behavior. In discussions, honesty is respected, not stubbornness. The participants in the discussion try to act naturally. Speakers speak clearly, understandably, without distorting the facts, words and thoughts of other people. If a participant in a discussion is not sure about something or is wrong about something, he honestly admits it, and if he is right, he does not become arrogant.

7. Raised hand rule. If you want to say something important, raise your hand and they will listen to you. If someone raises their hand, everyone listens to him carefully, without interrupting. If several hands are raised, the speaker’s order is determined by the presenter.

There are a number of principles for conducting discussion, which:

a) will allow you to better prepare for the discussion;

b) organize and mobilize you to win the discussion;

c) allow you to logically correctly argue and consistently defend your position;

d) learn to take into account the strengths and be tolerant of the shortcomings of your opponents;

e) direct you to use your strengths and overcome your shortcomings.

So, what principles should we keep in mind during the discussion?

1. The principle of preliminary preparation for the discussion. In accordance with this principle, preliminary preparation for a discussion allows you not only to mobilize, but also to think a lot and even model the most likely course of the discussion, make some “preparations,” collect and comprehend some background information.

2. The principle of a tolerant attitude towards dissidents. The essence of the principle is that the opposite side, just like you, has the right to its opinion. She, just like you, strives for the truth, but the process of searching for it must be correct on both sides.

3. The principle of sequential analysis of alternatives. The essence of this principle is that almost any problem or task usually has several possible approaches and solutions. However, not all approaches and methods of solving problems are equally optimal. Already two different methods, depending on conditions, goals, and means, can serve the truth to varying degrees. Moreover, when developing and arguing this or that approach, we often make significant miscalculations and mistakes in the very process of searching for truth. The same is true for our opponents. That is why the principle of consistent analysis of alternatives in the process of discussion is put forward.

4. The principle of correct discussion. This is one of the basic principles of discussions and negotiations, which is that the more correct your judgments and actions are, the greater your chances of a decent victory over your opponent.

5. The principle of “detachment” in the process of discussion. It has long been noted that a discussion is won not only by the one who speaks more eruditely and with more reasoning, but first of all by the one who, as if observing the progress of the discussion, sees everything that is happening as a whole and is able to correct his shortcomings and mistakes along the way, to rise above personal interests and overcome psychological barriers. Detachment means an unexpectedly new direction of judgment and action, which is used by one or another participant in the discussion as an original and creative person.

6. The principle of overcoming psychological barriers in the process of discussion. The essence of this principle is that there is a whole series of false internal attitudes, states, without overcoming which the effectiveness of your argument decreases. This could be, for example, the belief that the other side is better prepared than you and is therefore stronger than you. Or, for example, the fear of looking worse than your opponent, in itself, restrains and hides your judgment and actions.

7. The principle of gradual progress towards the truth. The essence of this method is that the effectiveness of the discussion and progress towards the truth directly depends on how clearly the phases, stages of the dispute, alternative approaches to solving the problem are identified and designated, and each of the alternatives clearly puts forward its arguments for and against "one or another approach to solving a problem.

discussion dialogue eristic debate

The principle of gradual progress towards the truth in the process of discussion involves the following stages:

Introductory information. The moderator who organizes the discussion and initiator of the meeting of interested parties informs the participants about the problem, goals and the situation itself that gave rise to the discussion.

Argumentation of the parties. Each of the parties, having its own position, its own point of view on solving the problem, expresses and defends its point of view with reason.

Opposition, critical judgments. Each of the debating parties acts as an opponent in relation to each other, expresses critical judgments, doubts, defending its position.

Active confrontation between the parties. Continuing the discussion, searching for additional arguments and supporters, including everyone who wants to take part in the dispute. Counterargumentation and comparison of alternatives.

Search for compromise solutions to the problem. At this stage, each of the warring parties must make acceptable concessions. A partial departure from one’s position, its active revision. All possible solutions to the problem are analyzed and compared.

Search for an acceptable solution. There is an active search and synthesis of everything constructive and positive that was expressed during the discussion/dispute, points of contact are monitored, positions are brought closer together, and mutually acceptable solutions are developed.

Ending the dispute, summarizing the results. At this stage, the results of the dispute are summed up, the results are summarized, and it is stated what has been achieved and at what cost.

8. The principle of respect for the opponent’s personality. The essence of this principle is that true freedom of opinion and judgment presupposes a high culture of discussion and debate. And for this, at a minimum, a respectful attitude towards dissent, that is, the opponent, is necessary. Thoughts and judgments must be countered with more convincing, more demonstrative judgments and thoughts and in no case offensive attacks.

9. The principle of reasoned constructive criticism. The essence of this principle is that when criticizing a point of view opposite to yours, you cannot limit yourself to this only; you must express your constructive proposals, new approaches or ways to solve the problem. In other words, criticism should not include naked denial, but also constructive proposals and alternatives.

The analysis pays attention to how the discussion participants perceived the questions proposed for discussion, what new problems were raised during the discussion, what is the relevance, validity, content of the proposals and the possibility of their implementation in the process of modeling and building an educational system.

Both the content of speeches and the course (procedural side) of the discussion and its effectiveness (achieving a goal, completing tasks, etc.) can be subjected to pedagogical analysis. The subject of analysis can also be the communicative culture of the discussion participants.

Still life analysis

At the first stage, sketches are made - this is how you can call a drawing created in a period of time from a few seconds to half an hour. A sketch is the first stage in creating a painting. And in a sense, the most important stage...

Spiritual creation in pre-industrial marriage

Cult of ancestors. The cult of ancestors is rightfully respected as one of the most ancient cults in the history of mankind - the descendants of the descendants associated wives with them from the late Paleolithic era (15-12 thousand BC)...

The art of argument and persuasion. Types of conversations

A dispute is a verbal competition, oral or written debate, where each side, refuting the opponent’s opinion, defends its opinion. According to social criteria, the following types of disputes are distinguished: 1...

Whatever social class you belong to, there are rules that dictate not only what you should say about moving to a new place of residence, but also how you should talk about it, or rather, complain...

Concepts of "house" and "home" in British society

Similar rules of modesty apply when discussing the cost of houses, especially since the British generally feel awkward when the conversation turns to money...

Concepts of "house" and "home" in British society

Whatever the social or financial status, no matter how much the house they moved into costs, it is customary to speak disparagingly about the tastes of the previous owner. If you don't have the time, skills or necessary funds...

Concepts of "house" and "home" in British society

If the phone rings, then you definitely need to answer it. Firstly, because without picking up the phone, you may lose valuable information or a lucrative contract. And secondly, clients who have not been served by you will probably think...

Culture of business communication over the phone

When the thought of calling comes to your mind, do not immediately grab the telephone receiver. First of all, you need to understand for what purpose you are going to call and what the content of the conversation should be...

Cultural and spiritual life of Russian society in the 19th century

The bourgeois reforms of the mid-19th century were a milestone in the socio-economic life of Russia and marked the beginning of the capitalist period in its history. These reforms had an impact on many aspects of public life...

World culture and its development

The lecture discusses the following questions: 1. Primitive culture - the origins of human civilization, ancient beliefs, the beginning of fine arts, the formation of scientific knowledge in the history of mankind. 2...

A dispute is a clash of opinions or positions, during which the parties present arguments in support of their beliefs and criticize the incompatible views of the other side. Rules for conducting a proper dispute. 1...

Basic principles and laws of modern rhetoric

In political, entrepreneurial, commercial and other areas of activity, business conversations and negotiations play an important role. Not only individual researchers study the ethics and psychology of negotiation processes...

Basic principles and laws of modern rhetoric

It is impossible to imagine modern business life without a telephone. Thanks to it, the efficiency of solving many questions and problems increases many times over, eliminating the need to send letters...

The concept of culture is difficult to define unambiguously. It is no coincidence that in philosophical literature there are many different formulations, each of which reveals individual aspects of this multifaceted phenomenon...

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

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

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

The ethics of business communication sets the following main task for the participants in the discussion - to prevent the discussion from moving into the phase of dispute. The following definition of dispute can be given: This a phase of negative development of the discussion, characterized by the irreconcilability of the parties, the dominance of the sophistical type of discussion, the transition to the emotional level of discussion to the detriment of the logical. An analogy can be drawn with the emotional stage of conflict development, when the conflicting parties have already They do not realize what the objective causes of the conflict were.

A similar picture is observed in the dispute. The parties involved begin to use methods to achieve results that are inadequate to the problem around which the dispute flared up. As a rule, it does not lead to the search for truth or to the optimal solution to condemned issues. In most cases, none of the parties involved in the dispute is satisfied, since they do not feel like a winner.

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

♦Promoting the emergence of alternatives, plurality of opinions, ways to solve the problem also interpreted as principle of decentralization in the discussion.

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

♦Constructiveness of criticism is one of the most important principles in business ethics. Criticism is defined as a negative judgment, indicating shortcomings in a person’s work and behavior. Hence, criticism is initially perceived by people as painful and negative, although there are ways to somewhat reduce the severity of this problem. Criticism should be constructive and should not infringe on the self-esteem of the person being criticized. This general principle is implemented through more specific rules that the person making critical comments must observe (for more information on the rules of constructive criticism, see 9.6).

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

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

As mentioned earlier, the culture of behavior in the discussion process involves, as one of its main elements, the ability of discussion participants to listen to their interlocutors. As a rule, the one who masters the skills of effective listening holds in his hands the threads of controlling the discussion. Moreover, a person who skillfully listens to the other side looks in her eyes as an interesting interlocutor, a person of high culture and intelligence.

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

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

a verbal signal about the need for any statements;

your own retelling of the interlocutor’s main thoughts;

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

a reaction that reflects the feelings of the interlocutor; it may include elements of the reactions already mentioned, but special emphasis here falls on the feeling of the speaker’s tone. In other words, we “mirror” the feelings of the interlocutor, his personal coloring of the subject of conversation.

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

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

restrains his desire to make a hasty judgment;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very often, a feeling of dissatisfaction with the results of a discussion arises in one of its participants due to the fact that he did not ask the necessary questions in time. As a result, the necessary information was not received in full, the position of the interlocutor was not fully clarified, and one’s own attitude to the problems considered during the discussion was not formed.

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

Questions used during the conversation can be divided into the following types:

open, requiring the interlocutor to receive detailed, voluminous information on the essence of the question posed; such questions begin with traditionally interrogative words like “how...?”, “how...?” "Why...?" and so on.;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EducationdebatableOuchspeechand and culturedispute in Russian language classes with foreign students

Bruleva F.G.

Almaty, KazNPU named after. Abaya

1. The teacher's word.

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

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

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

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

2. Drawing up a table.

Types of discussions by number of participants

Mass discussion	Group discussion	Symposium
There is a chairman, anyone may appear in the line order	Presenter and dedicated group in front of audience listening	A series of short speeches on the same topic, presenting different positions. The number of speakers is small. Ends with a short summary

Discussions vary in their goals and results

Types of discussions by purpose

IIIIII

Achieve general agreement Disassociate from Get to know the arguments

"opponents" of the opposite side

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

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

Types of discussions based on results

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

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

2. What is "pluralism"?

3. What do opponents of pluralism argue?

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

From the article "Our pluralists"

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

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

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

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

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

(And Solzhenitsyn)

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

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

Discussion card

"For" (pluralism)	"Against" (pluralism)
1. ...	1. ...
2. ...	2. ...
3....	3....

General discussion questions for all participants:

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

Can pluralism be recognized as one of the highest principles?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions about conducting discussions

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

2. Write a version of the moderator’s introductory and concluding remarks depending on the type of discussion: confrontational (to disengage), informational (get to know the arguments, illustrative examples of the other side), imperative (lead to general agreement).

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

4. What are the most powerful verbs you used?

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

Requirements for a discussion thesis

1) Clear, consistent formulation.

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

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

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

4. Introductory reading.

Logical errors

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

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

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

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

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

5. Reference materials.

Discussion speech is the basis of such rhetorical genres How:

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

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

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

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

Independent work.

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

Retell the paragraph about the culture of argument.

About the dispute. About the culture of dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(By M.R. Lvov)

Literature:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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