Очень ответственный автор. Работы выполнена раньше срока, все пожелания и требования по работе учтены. Рекомендую
Информация о работе
Подробнее о работе
Stylistic devices as means of enhancing the pragmatic effect I public speaking (in the material I the pre-election speeches of DONALD TRUMP)
- 36 страниц
- 2019 год
- 59 просмотров
- 0 покупок
Гарантия сервиса Автор24
Уникальность не ниже 50%
Фрагменты работ
The modern stage of linguistics development is characterized by a special interest in the problems of speech communication and speech interaction as its component. Acting through speech, you can influence the thoughts and feelings of the listener, to encourage him to any action.
Despite the fact that rhetoric as a science has a long history, the study of the problems of oratory is particularly intensive in the second half of the XX century. The study of oratory has always attracted the attention of researchers, however, it is now linguists and psychologists both abroad and in Russia are trying to in-depth study of the problems of oratory. After all, language plays a key role in public speeches of political leaders, in parliamentary debates, in diplomatic negotiations, in newspaper and magazine analytical articles of a political nature. Modern technologies of speech influence allow to have a real impact on the consciousness and behavior of the target audience, to influence the results of elections, to create a certain image of certain politicians or parties. The ultimate goal of any speaker or author of the article, his communicative intention is to convince the addressee of his rightness, to encourage him to any action. It is obvious that the achievement of this goal is feasible to a large extent through the use of emotionally-rich speech, which, of course, has the greatest impact on the audience. That is why political discourse is so widely the use of various linguistic means.
It is obvious that the main incentive to increase research is to solve a pragmatic problem – finding effective ways to influence public speech on the audience, their feelings, thoughts, behavior.
It is a recognized fact that speech effects should be considered in line with the pragmatists. As you know, pragmatics considers those linguistic means and patterns of speech that are used to influence thoughts, feelings, will and, as a consequence, the behavior of communication partners. For linguistic pragmatics, considering speech communication as one of the forms of purposeful activity, it is natural to seek to identify the mechanisms that ensure the success of speech influence, that is, the achievement of certain goals by the speaker.
It is known that public speech may be aimed at the transfer of new information. However, the transmission of speech messages is never the ultimate goal of public speech, it is the ultimate goal of public speech, it is only a means to achieve other goals, the ultimate of which is the goal of managing the activities, thinking of the listener. This is the pragmatic aspect of speech.
Due to the fact that currently special attention is paid to the issues of pragmalinguistics, the study of the pragmatic aspect of public speech is quite relevant.
Thus, the relevance of this study is due to the interest of modern science to the study of public speech as a rhetorical and linguistic phenomenon, in particular, to issues related to the participation of language means in the process of persuasion. Important for the study of modern public speech is to establish the role of linguistic and extralinguistic means in the implementation of the impact of speech on the audience, the identification of lexical, grammatical and stylistic characteristics depending on the type of public speech.
The above allowed us to formulate the goals and objectives of this study.
The aim of this work is to study the techniques by which the maximum pragmatic effect of public speech is achieved. To achieve the maximum pragmatic effect of speech, it is necessary to take into account such factors as: the situation of speech, the social status of the speaker and listeners, the level of intellectual, professional, cultural, emotional development of listeners, the attitude of the audience to the speaker and others. Taking into account the above and other factors will provide a positive pragmatic effect of speech.
Based on the above, we can formulate the following tasks of this work:
- to consider the historical development of oratory;
- to study the target settings of speech stages and ways of their implementation;
- to analyze the means of the speaker's communicative strategy and the ways of their speech and non-speech impact on the audience;
- determine: factors affecting the degree of pragmatic impact of speech, focusing on the characteristics of persuasive speech;
The following methods were used in the study:
generalization, analysis, synthesis.
The object of the study is the process of identifying rhetorical means in the texts of speakers ' speeches.
Subject: speech and video recordings of the speeches of the orators, politicians, and public figures.
The hypothesis of the study the use of rhetorical means in public speech contributes to the creation of a pragmatic maximum effect.
The material for the study was the use of rhetorical means presented in newspaper and magazine articles of political orientation in the British and American high-quality press, the texts of speeches of famous politicians.
The theoretical and practical significance of the work is determined by the possibility of using examples to verify the effectiveness of means of influence on the consciousness of the addressee, which, in turn, is the ultimate goal of the speaker's speech.
In the process of research the following methods were used: analysis of scientific literature on the problem under study; watching videos, working with texts of famous speakers, identifying rhetorical means on the example of speech texts and their subsequent analysis.
Content
Introduction …………………………………………………………………3
1. Public speech as a means of influencing the audience …………………6
1.1 Rhetoric as the art of words ……………………………………………6
1.2 Types of public speech ……………………………………………….10
1.3 Public speech as a means of pragmatic impact on the audience …….11
2. The choice of communicative strategies of public speaking ………….15
2.1 Stages of preparing a public speech …………………………………15
2.2 Target settings of speech stages and ways of their implementation ..24
2.3 Pragmatic means of influence used by the speaker in making a speech.25
3. Stylistic devices as means of enhancing the pragmatic effect I public speaking ………………………………………………………………………….32
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………35
References …………………………………………………………………36
Content
Introduction …………………………………………………………………3
1. Public speech as a means of influencing the audience …………………6
1.1 Rhetoric as the art of words ……………………………………………6
1.2 Types of public speech ……………………………………………….10
1.3 Public speech as a means of pragmatic impact on the audience …….11
2. The choice of communicative strategies of public speaking ………….15
2.1 Stages of preparing a public speech …………………………………15
2.2 Target settings of speech stages and ways of their implementation ..24
2.3 Pragmatic means of influence used by the speaker in making a speech.25
3. Stylistic devices as means of enhancing the pragmatic effect I public speaking ………………………………………………………………………….32
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………35
References …………………………………………………………………36
1. Abashkina E., Egorova-Gantman E. and others are not born Politicians: how to become and remain an effective political leader (psychological guide for politicians). Part 1-2. M., 1993. - 170 C.
2.Averichev A. K. a Return of rhetoric (introduction) // J. Dubois, F. of edelin and others General rhetoric. M., 1999. - p. 38-44.
3.Rhetoric as an approach to the generalization of reality // Averintsev S. Poetics of ancient Greek literature. M., 1999. - p. 69-78.
4.Averintsev S. S. Ancient rhetoric and the fate of the ancient rationalism // Antique poetics: Rhetorical theory and literary practice / edited by M. L. Gasparov. M., 1991. - p. 59-62.
5.Alekseev A. p. Reasoning, knowledge, communication. M., 2006. - p. 155-156.
6.Alekseeva I. Historical forms of discussion: logical analysis. Series: Philosophy. 2005.- p. 133-136.
7.Allen J., Perrault R. Identification of the communicative intention contained in the utterance. // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. 17: Theory of speech acts. M., 1986.
Alpatov V. M. Noam Chomsky / / History of linguistic teachings-4th ed., ISPR. and DOP.. - Moscow: languages of Slavic culture, 2005.
8.The [V. I. Rhetoric: a Training manual. Perm, 2003. S. 33-35.
9.Annushkin V. I. experience of periodization of the history of Russian rhetoric.// Rhetoric 2000. - p. 32-34.
10.Apresyan G. Z. Oratory. M., 2003. - p. 57-64.
11.Aristotle Rhetoric / / Ancient rhetoric./ Red. Ah. M., 1978. - p. 15-164.
12.Aristotle.Poetics.Rhetoric.-SPb.: Azbuka publishing house, 2000.- c.49-55.
13.Arno A. and Nicole, P. Logic or the art of thinking. M., 2001. - 26 p.
14.Arutyunova N. D. Types of linguistic meanings: Evaluation. Event. Fact. M., 2000.p. - 155.
15.Harutyunova N. D. Discourse / / Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. M., 2005. - p. 33.
16.Harutyunova N. D. Genres of communication / / Human factor in language. Communication, modality, deixis. M., 2002. - p. 200.
17.Asatryan, M. V. Extrapolation and argument // Philosophical problems of argumentation. Yerevan, 1999. – p.122.
18.Afonin N. S. The effectiveness of lecture propaganda. M.: Knowledge, 1999.-p.122.
19.Baranov A. M. Sergeev, V. M., Linguo-pragmatic mechanisms of argumentation // Rationality, reasoning, communication. Kiev, 2000.- p. 123.
20.Baranov A. G. Dynamic stylistics (contextualism vs actualism) / / Varieties of text in functional-stylistic aspect. Moscow, 2000. - p. 166.
21.Baranov A. G. Cognitivist text (To the problem of levels of abstraction textual activity) // speech Genres. Saratov, 2008. - p. 133-154.
22.Baranov. Argumentation in the decision-making process (to the typology of meta-linguistic description of argumentative dialogue) // Cognitive research abroad: methods of artificial intelligence in the modeling of political thinking. M., 1999.- p. 123-124.
23.Baranov. Linguistic theory of argumentation (cognitive approach). – Author's abstract Doct. dis. M., 2002.- p. 122-123.
24.Baranov A. N., Kazakevich, E. G., Parliamentary debates: traditions and innovations (Series: Science of persuasion: rhetoric No. 10) M.: Knowledge,2000. - p. 146-150.
25.Barnet VL. Issues in the study of genres of verbal scientific language // Modern Russian oral scientific speech. Vol.1.Moscow, 2010. - p. - 144-147.
Форма заказа новой работы
Не подошла эта работа?
Закажи новую работу, сделанную по твоим требованиям
