Functional-semantic types of speech. Description as a type of speech

All texts are divided into three semantic types: description, narration, reasoning.

Description- the semantic type of the text, which describes the signs of objects, phenomena, animals, humans:

Autumn has come. The small foliage has almost completely flown from the coastal vines, and the branches show through in the turquoise sky. The water under the vines became clear, icy and as if heavy. And the black sky is drawn with fiery stripes by shooting stars (I. Bunin).

Purpose of description- show the reader or listener the subject of the description so that he visually represents it in his mind.

Description composition elements: general idea of the subject, individual features of the subject, author's assessment, conclusion, conclusion.

A description of nature is called a landscape, a description of a person is called a portrait.

Descriptive tex t can be in the shape of any style.

Narration– a semantic type of text that describes events in a certain sequence:

But then the shooting began to subside and then completely stopped. Black shadows rushed to the side, ran into our fire and disappeared behind the trees. The enemy has left! This most difficult and terrible night fight in the forest is over. (M. Fortus)

Narrative text comes in the form of artistic and colloquial styles.

The literary narrative text has a certain structure - composition(from lat. compposito - composition, compilation, connection). It is customary to single out: exposure(situation prior to the start of the action), eyeballs(what the action begins with), the development of the action, climax(the highest point in the development of the action), interchange(end of event).

Events can develop in chronological order and in reverse, when we first learn about the denouement, and then about the development of the action.

The narration can be in the third person, this is the author's narration, or in the first person.

reasoning- the semantic type of the text, which affirms or denies any phenomenon, fact, concept.

The reasoning is built as follows: thesis, arguments proving it, conclusion. The thesis must be clearly formulated and provable, the arguments must be convincing. It is important that a logical, semantic and grammatical connection be established between the thesis and arguments (introductory words are often used: first, so, therefore):

Russian language is one of the greatest languages in the world.

Firstly, it is distinguished by the richness of vocabulary, secondly, by the extraordinary flexibility and plasticity of linguistic forms, and thirdly, by the variety of stylistic means.

So, A.S. was right. Pushkin, arguing that our language is not only not inferior to European languages, but has superiority over them.

(A. Dudnikov)

Reasoning differs from description and narration by a more complex construction of sentences (with participial and adverbial phrases, various types of allied and allied connection), vocabulary (words denoting abstract concepts: good, true).

Reasoning can appear in different genre forms: letters, articles, reports, political speeches.

I. Introduction

Primary requirements

1. Establish contact with listeners.

2. Attract attention, emphasize the importance of the topic.

3. Clearly formulate the topic and main idea, outline the speech plan

tricks

. "Hooking Start"

Reception of paradoxical quotation.

quote, proverb,

Sayings, aphorisms

Question to the audience

Examples of speech formulas:

Can you read? This question usually causes bewilderment - how, we are all literate people! But the great Goethe claimed that he learned to read all his life, but even now he cannot be sure that he can do it.

II. Main part

Primary requirements

1. reveal 5-7 main provisions.

2. Divide the selected information into semantic parts.

3. Use the most convincing examples, quotes, figures

tricks

Analogy.

Contrasting.

Comparisons.

Evaluative vocabulary

Examples of speech formulas:

Transitions:

. but;

. not only but;

. on the other side;

. now consider;

. another characteristic feature (feature);

. no less important reason;

. to other advantages (disadvantages);

. against;

. still to be considered;

. Let's name some others...

III. Conclusion

Primary requirements

"General assault" of the audience:

Allow the audience to remember the main points

Activate the audience.

tricks

Formulation of the main idea and general theses.

Aphorisms.

Round off speech, i.e. be able to connect the beginning of a speech with its end.

Examples of speech formulas:

. summing up all of the above;

. thus;

. hence;

. follows from what has been said;

. summarizing what has been said;

. allows to conclude

Functional-semantic types of speech (FSTR) - communicatively-conditioned typified varieties of monologue speech, which traditionally include description, narration and reasoning . In the history of the development of rhetoric, poetics and stylistics, they had different names: methods of presentation, types of text, verbal and stylistic unities, compositional and speech forms, etc. The term "functional-semantic type of speech" was introduced into scientific circulation by prof. O.A. Nechaeva (1974).

The development of functional stylistics, the special appeal of scientists to the problem of FSTR, the involvement as an object of study of the entire variety of socially significant functional varieties of speech led to the isolation of subtypes within the FSTR, the allocation of new types of speech (the main ones should include prescription and statement- types of speech, characteristic primarily for official business texts). The specificity of the functional varieties of the language determines the variability in the manifestation of the same FSTR in different texts - up to their functional and semantic transformation.

Consider the main FSTR, characterizing each of them. The main ones include types of speech that make up the dominant of one or more functional styles.

Description - FSTR, the essence of which is to express the fact of the coexistence of objects, their signs at the same time. The description serves for a detailed transfer of the state of reality, images of nature, terrain, interior, appearance.

In the content of descriptive texts, the main thing is objects, properties, qualities, and not actions. Therefore, the main semantic load is borne by nouns and adjectives. Nouns refer to specific vocabulary (river, village, window, etc.). Words with a spatial meaning are widely used - the circumstances of the place (on the river, on both sides, between the pines, in the clearing, behind the house, etc.). The verbal predicates are either weakened in semantic terms, erased (the estate stands on the river; the window overlooks the river; the road went to the right), or they have a qualitative-figurative meaning (the grass was white with strawberry flowers; it bloomed thickly). The verb form of the present tense is often used, expressing the long-term state of the object or the "timeless" state (standing, connecting, propping up). Imperfect past tense verbs indicate the state of the described phenomena at the time of observing them (whitened, bloomed). Even perfective verbs in descriptive contexts convey a property, a characteristic of an object, and not an active action (a barely noticeable path branched off from it, winded between the pines and died in a clearing).

The description is characterized by the uniformity of the forms of the predicate, which is an indicator of the static character of the depicted. The most frequent are descriptions with a single plan of the present tense or with a single plan of the past tense. The degree of staticness in descriptions with a past tense plan is lower than in descriptions with a present tense plan. The structure of sentences in the description is often characterized by syntactic parallelism.

The description may include a sequence of nominative and elliptical constructions, which creates a kind of nominative style, most clearly represented in the remarks of dramatic works, film scripts, and diary entries. In such descriptions, objects seem to be captured by a video camera. Offers are equal relative to each other, they can be grouped differently, it all depends on the "starting point".

A special kind of description is characteristic- type of speech used to depict the qualities of a person or object. In the characteristic, as in any description, there may be elements of reasoning. A literary text is characterized by a contamination of description with narration. Elements of descriptiveness are present in almost any narrative text.

Sometimes the semantic load in the description falls on the action, in this case they talk about "dynamic description"- the type of speech is transitional, bordering on the narrative. The dynamic description conveys the flow of actions with small time intervals in a limited space. Dynamic description is often used to show external events, being a means of naturalistic reflection of reality (there is a special term for the naturalistic method of a very detailed description of an action with great accuracy in rendering details - "second style"). In addition, a dynamic description can serve as a means of sharp, subtle psychological sketches - when depicting the experience, the dynamics of the hero's internal state.

Narration - FSTR, designed to depict a sequential series of events or the transition of an object from one state to another.

In the foreground in the content of narrative fragments of the text is the order of the action. Each sentence usually expresses some stage, stage in the development of the action, in the movement of the plot. An important role is played by the temporal correlation of predicates, which can manifest itself both as their temporal uniformity and as temporal heterogeneity. The main semantic load is usually performed by perfective verbs, prefixed and non-prefixed (settled, introduced, talked, went, dined, walked, decided, etc.; came, bloomed, blossomed, turned blue, gilded, etc.), which denote limiting actions changing. The narrative is characterized by specific vocabulary (doctor, patients, horses, city, garden; forest, snowdrops, cat, mustache, paws). The course of events is accentuated by means of the circumstances of the time (just now, somehow in winter, in spring, on a holiday, after receiving the sick, later).

In terms of the use of syntactic constructions and types of connection of sentences, the narrative is opposed to the description, which is manifested, in particular, in the following:

1) in the difference in the aspectual-temporal forms of verbs - the description is based mainly on the use of forms of the imperfect aspect, the narrative is perfect;

2) in the predominance of a chain connection of sentences in the narrative - a parallel connection is more characteristic of the description;

3) in the use of one-component sentences - nominative sentences, impersonal sentences, widely presented in descriptive contexts, are atypical for the narrative.

reasoning - FSTR, corresponding to the form of abstract thinking - inference, performing a special communicative task - to give a reasoned character to speech (come in a logical way to a new judgment or argue what was said earlier) and formalized with the help of lexical and grammatical means of cause-and-effect semantics. The main area of use of reasoning is scientific, actualizing the logical, rational type of thinking.

Reasoning functions in texts in the form of several communicative and compositional options, the typology of which is a field structure.

The central variety is reasoning(reasoning in the narrow sense of the word) - a type of speech that most consistently expresses the causal relationship between judgments: from cause to effect, and not from consequence (thesis) to cause (foundation). The central place of reasoning itself in the system of argumentative subtypes of speech is also due to its role in the communicative-cognitive process. It is this type of speech that formalizes the derivation of new knowledge, demonstrates the course of the author's thought, the way to solve the problem. Structurally, reasoning itself is a chain of sentences connected by relations of logical consequence.

The region adjacent to the center, the region of the near periphery, is occupied by subtypes of reasoning, which serve to give the expressed judgments a more reasoned character: proof(communicative-cognitive function - establishing the truth of the thesis), refutation(a kind of evidence that serves to establish the falsity of the thesis), the confirmation(or empirical evidence, the function is to establish the reliability of the stated position by supporting it with facts), justification(establishment of the expediency of an action, motivation; in contrast to the evidence, which corresponds to the question "Is it really so?", the justification gives an answer to the question "Is it really necessary, expedient?"). These subtypes of reasoning are united among themselves on the basis of structural similarity: they all include a thesis, which forms a key part of the construction, and arguments - a commentary part, which is designed to remove doubts (in whole or in part) about the position put forward as a thesis.

Proof, as a rule, ends with a variant repetition of the thesis - a conclusion, that is, a judgment already known to the reader, the new moment of which is that its truth has been proven. Between the initial and final sentences, a distant lexical-semantic connection is established, which is a signal of the beginning and end of the statement, performs a special compositional role, organizing the text. The proof is characterized by the use of a typical set of tools. The stereotypical ways of its design include the designation of a sequence of operations using verbs of the 1st person plural: find, multiply, equate, define, etc. etc. To express causal relationships, unions and allied analogues of the corresponding semantics are used: since, so, because, therefore, therefore, thus, so. In the proof, carried out with the help of additional assumptions, the particle let, conditional constructions, is used.

In the region of the far periphery of the field structure of reasoning is explanation. Unlike the named subtypes of reasoning, the explanation serves primarily not to confirm the validity of the thesis (or establish its falsity), but to reveal the causes of real phenomena.

Strictly logical detailed reasoning itself is not typical for artistic, journalistic, official business texts. In journalistic texts, reasoning itself performs the function of preparing, leading the reader to a certain conclusion, but here, unlike scientific speech, this subtype of reasoning, even with its large volume, as a rule, is not a chain of judgments logically arising from one another, but factual information followed by a conclusion. For journalism focused on the mentality of an educated, intelligent addressee, argumentative types of speech are fundamentally important, since they ensure the implementation of the main communicative function of journalism - persuasive influence. However, the task of persuasion is solved in journalism not through the actual proof, that is, not through strict logical procedures, as in scientific speech. In journalistic texts, in order to convince the reader of the correctness of the author's judgments, confirmation of their facts is used. In this regard, a large activity of the argumentative subtype of speech "confirmation" is found here.

Explanation and justification are common not only in scientific, but also in journalistic texts, where they serve the task of increasing the reader's understanding of the analyzed problems, the importance of the decisions made, the actions taken. Explanation is also present in works of art, however, like other types of reasoning, it is distinguished here by a special "aura", arising as a result of a creative dialogue between the author and the reader in the process of clarifying the artistic meaning of the text. An open explanation of the events described, the states of the characters, which increases the degree of plausibility of the depicted, is combined with hidden forms of explanation, deliberate understatement, which encourages the reader to think, look for answers to the numerous “why?” in the general context and in the subtext of the work, and thereby helps the reader to get closer to understanding the deep ideological and aesthetic content of the work.

Oratory is heterogeneous in its composition, since in the process of thinking a person tends to reflect various objectively existing connections between the phenomena of reality, between objects, events, individual judgments, which, in turn, finds expression in various functional and semantic types of speech: description, narration, reasoning (thinking). Monological types of speech are built on the basis of reflecting mental diachronic, synchronic, cause-and-effect processes. Oratorical speech in this regard is a monologue narrative - information about developing actions, a monologue description - information about the simultaneous features of an object, a monologue reasoning - about cause-and-effect relationships. Semantic types are present in speech depending on its type, purpose and on the speaker's conceptual intention, which determines the inclusion or non-inclusion of one or another semantic type in the general fabric of oratory speech; the change of these types is caused by the speaker's desire to more fully express his thought, reflect his position, help listeners perceive the speech and most effectively influence the audience, as well as give speech a dynamic character. At the same time, in different types of oratory there will be a different ratio of these types, because in reality they all mix, interact, and their isolation is very conditional.

Narration is a dynamic functional-semantic type of speech that expresses a message about actions or states developing in a temporal sequence and has specific linguistic means. Narrative conveys changing actions or states that unfold over time. This type of speech, unlike the description, is dynamic, so time plans can constantly change in it. For example, this is how time plans change in F. N. Plevako’s speech on the Gruzinsky case: “20 years ago, a young man, he met in Moscow, on the Kuznetsky bridge near Tromle, a confectioner, a sweets dealer, a beautiful saleswoman Olga Nikolaevna Frolova. She liked him, he loved her. In a confectionery, where the goods are not just bread or firewood, without which you cannot do, but you can even go to a dirty inn to buy, bait is needed in a confectionery. So they stand there in the chambers filled with lights and gold, the beautiful saleswoman; and who would have enough a pound for a week, you see - every day he comes in to admire, to exchange words, to be kind<...>. She fell in love, and it became hard for him at the thought that she would stand at the auction, in a lively place, where anyone who wanted to stare at her would speak obscene speeches. He takes her to his house as a friend. He would immediately marry her, but his mother is still alive, even more than he, close to her old glory: she does not want to hear about the marriage of her son with a shop assistant. The son, ardently devoted to his mother, yields. Meanwhile, Olga Nikolaevna suffered from him, gave birth to her first-born son. The prince did not react to this in the same way as those revelers about whom I spoke. For him, it was his son, his blood. He called his best friends: Prince Imeretinsky baptized him. This fragment is a narrative (because it shows developing, dynamic events) with elements of description (because static pictures are given that accompany this narrative). The entire presentation is divided into separate clear frames of different time plans, which helps to quickly perceive speech.

Narration includes dynamically reflected situations of the external world, and this arrangement of a given type of utterance determines its position in speech. This type is resorted to if it is necessary to confirm the statements made by the speaker with specific examples or when analyzing some situations. The speaker's task is to depict the sequence of events, to convey this sequence with the necessary accuracy. Thus, meaningful and factual information is transmitted, and it is clothed in different forms. Firstly, the speaker can speak as a participant in the events, secondly, state the events from the words of a third person, and thirdly, model the series of events without indicating the source of information. The speaker conveys events that take place as if before the eyes of the audience, or introduces memories of events developing in the past. For example, N.P. Karabchevsky uses this technique in his speech on the case of Olga Palem: “With such lightweight luggage, she went to Odessa. To remain in Simferopol, in the same Jewish environment, from now on hostile to her, was already unthinkable. In Odessa, she had neither relatives nor acquaintances. Remember Berting's testimony. At first, she tried to settle down to some at least black, at least hard work. She became a maid. She stayed for several days and was released, as it turned out that she did not know how to take on anything, she was a white hand. Then we see “for some time she was a saleswoman in a tobacco shop. According to the recall of the police bailiff Chabanov, at that time she was poorly dressed, but she was distinguished by flourishing health, she was energetic and cheerful. Nothing reprehensible could be noted in her behavior.

Then, some time later, in 1887, the same bailiff Chabanov began to meet her already "well dressed." This narrative speaks of the characters, the place and time of the action, the action itself, which is developing. The defense lawyer reproduces the actions of Olga Palem on the basis of her testimony and the testimony of witnesses.

The dynamics of the narrative is created through the use of verbs that can express a quick change of events, the sequence of their development, therefore, verbs of a specific action are most often used. Dynamics can also be conveyed by the meaning of verbs, their different types of temporal plans, the order of succession, referring them to the same subject, adverbial words with the meaning of time, conjunctions, etc. The principle of rapid narrative movement comes into force, and the style acquires breathtaking speed . Such, for example, is the narrative part of K. F. Khartulari’s speech on the Lebedev case: “Having secured a permit from the city government to demolish the building, the board, in accordance with the obligation, demanded from Lebedev an immediate start to work.

Lebedev went to the Nikolsky market, and there, among the working proletariat, he recruited a detachment of workers for the cheapest daily wages.

This entire detachment, under the command of Andrei Lebedev,<...>scattered over the dome of the building, which from the inside, for safety, was supported by four wooden posts, fastened together with iron ties or staples<...>.

Work boiled over. Hammers banged, and soon the outer metal sheathing was removed, and behind it the so-called black floor was removed, and the skeleton of the dome was immediately exposed with its metal rafters, up to 32 in number, which, like radii from the center, descended from the top of the dome to its base, lying on the walls of the building itself in the ring.

The most difficult and most dangerous part of the work was coming, which consisted in dismantling and dismembering the metal rafters. The words that are used here give dynamics to the presentation: it required an immediate start to work, set off, recruits, crumbled, work began to boil, hammers banged, soon, immediately got naked. Dynamic speech always effectively influences listeners.

It is possible to single out specific, generalized and informational narration. Concrete is a narrative about dismembered, chronologically sequential concrete actions of one or more actors, for example, in a judicial speech; generalized - about specific actions, but characteristic of many situations, typical for a certain situation, for example, in a scientific presentation; informational - a message about any actions or states without their specification and detailed chronological sequence; it most often takes the form of a retelling of the actions of the subject or the form of indirect speech.

The narration in speeches can be built according to the scheme of the traditional three-part division, that is, it has its own plot, which introduces the essence of the matter and predetermines the movement of the plot, the development of the action and the denouement, containing an explicit or implicit emotional assessment of the event by the speaker.

Usually, there is a distinction between extended and non-extended narration. An extended narrative is a speech that reflects successive, sometimes simultaneous, but developing actions or states. A non-expanded narration is either expressed by a separate remark in a dialogue, or, when used in a micro-thematic context, serves as an introduction to a description or reasoning.

Description - this is a stating speech, as a rule, giving a static picture, an idea of the nature, composition, structure, properties, qualities of an object by listing both its essential and non-essential features at the moment.

Description can be of two types: static and dynamic. The first gives the object in statics, the signs of the object indicated in speech can denote its temporary or permanent properties, qualities and states. For example, a description of the scene in a judicial speech or a description of an object in a political speech. The description of the second type is less common; Thus, any experience in scientific speech usually appears in development, dynamics.

Descriptions are very diverse both in content and form. They can be, for example, figurative. The speaker, trying to inform the listeners of the necessary amount of information, gives not only a detailed description of the object, but also its characteristics, assessment, recreating a certain picture, which brings the speech closer to the description in fiction.

The center of the description is nouns with objective meaning, which give rise to a specific image in the minds of listeners, and informatively it can be very rich, since nouns with objective meaning cause a number of associations. Let us give an example from N. I. Bukharin’s speech “Goethe and His Historical Significance”, delivered by him in 1932 at a solemn meeting of the USSR Academy of Sciences dedicated to the 100th anniversary of Goethe’s death: “Serf labor, “belt whip”, Christian- German patriarchy of life found its adequate expression in the political superstructure of the country. Since the Peace of Westphalia, Germany has been divided into 300 too-sovereign "states" and well over 1,000 semi-sovereign knightly estates. These sometimes tiny political units<...>felt like real “courts”: every prince wanted to be a little Louis XIV, to have his own luxurious Versailles, his charming Marquise de Pompadour, his court jesters, his life poets, his ministers and, above all, his police and army. Here, the method of description is the enumeration of nouns, through which the characteristics of one object are given - Germany in the time of Goethe. In the first half of the fragment, nouns are used in their direct meaning (except for the expression "belt whip" belonging to Goethe), but comparisons already appear in the second half, which enhances the associative moment. Thanks to such a concentration of nouns, the speaker manages to give an exhaustive description of Germany at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries, with its medieval patriarchal way of life, on the one hand, and its claims to luxury and independence, on the other.

Let us give another example from N. I. Bukharin’s report on Heine, read by him at a solemn public meeting at the USSR Academy of Sciences on April 29, 1931, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the poet’s death: “Heine is so brilliant and bright, so many-sided and whimsical that from the precious casket of his poetic creativity one can choose the dagger of a tyrant and the diamond ring of an aristocrat; the spring pipe and the sword of the revolution; pearls of tears and cynical irony; medieval amulet and purple banner of the proletarian revolution. Heine is the king of visions and dreams, the fabulous prince of romantic dreams. And at the same time, a great mocker, the earthly incarnation of the goddess Irony, a brilliant "whistle". Leader of the "party of flowers and nightingales". And on the other page - the dashing drummer of the revolution. This fragment uses a large number of nouns in a figurative sense and adjectives with a qualitative-evaluative meaning, characterizing the poet from different angles, as well as quoting. As a result, a qualitative characteristic of the image is given.

In the description, as a rule, the forms of the present, past and future tenses are used. For judicial speech, the use of the past tense is most typical, for academic speech - the present. The latter lists the permanent features of objects, which is expressed using present tense verbs. For example, I.P. Pavlov describes the actions that took place in his report as follows: “And you, who are somewhat familiar with conditioned reflexes, know, of course, that we finally have in our hands, on the one hand, external stimuli that produce in the central nervous system is an excitatory process, and on the other hand, we have stimuli in our hands, which in the large hemispheres produce an inhibitory process” (23, 329).

Descriptions are more or less homogeneous in their syntactic structure. As can be seen from the previous examples, it usually represents an enumeration of key words or words denoting the features of the Described object, in a direct or figurative sense, which determines the enumerative intonation, as a result of which a complete image of the object is created.

In a dynamic event description, relatively equal, complete actions or facts are depicted in the form of changing parts, which gives the statement an enumerative character. This type of description has a designated start and end. Here is how F.N. Plevako uses the dynamic event description in his defensive speech on the case of the Lutoric peasants: “The need arose to always borrow land from the landowner for cultivation, to always look for work from him, to lend seeds for seeding the fields. Permanent debts, thanks to the methods of management, grew and dragged the peasants: the creditor ruled over the debtor and enslaved him to work for himself, work for non-payment of the accumulated penalty from year to year.

In this position, where the creditor ruled and the debtor suffocated, there was no longer a trace of a voluntary agreement. Monstrous contracts and decisions prove that management did not agree, but prescribed a condition; eternally bonded peasants also did not agree, but silently put on a noose, which ended and free civil transactions between the peasants and their former owner came into force. In this passage, a dynamic description of the event is given, and the main role is played here by verbs that express equal completed actions and act in close connection with various nouns denoting subjects, objects, abstract concepts, processes: the need arose to look for work, to lend with seeds, debts grew and the peasants were dragged in, the creditor ruled, enslaved him, the debtor suffocated, prescribed a condition, transactions came into force, etc. This description has a general idea, a single content core (the position of the peasants), and at the same time it reveals this idea in two aspects (creditors landlords - debtors peasants).

The description can be expanded, detailed and concise, brief; objectified, for example, a description of an experience in an academic speech or a crime scene in a judicial speech, and subjective, in which the speaker expresses his attitude to the object, for example, a description of a situation in a political speech. Most often, of course, the speaker does not hide his attitude to the object, giving him a hidden or explicit assessment. Let us give an example from the same speech by Plevako N.F. in the case of the Lutoric peasants: “I ask you to look through the submitted document. Claims for penalties of 30 percent, 50 percent, 100 percent for a debt flash before my eyes. Penalties of 300 and 500 rubles - in dozens. And read the contract: a full penalty for non-payment of a small share of the debt. Read case No. 143 for 1870 - they are looking for a debt and a penalty, the peasants bring money to the judge. The money was accepted, received, but a writ of execution was nevertheless taken for a penalty of 50 percent. Read case No. 158 - a terrible, disgusting contract: in case of delay - the hut, the cow, the horse and everything that is found in the hut goes into a penalty. Claims are awarded on certificates of the volost board. Awarded according to the certificate given by the volost board!” . This fragment provides a detailed description of objective facts. However, it reflects the point of view of the speaker, giving a negative assessment of the indicated facts (terrible, disgusting treaty), and also contains a call to action (please scroll, read). It should also be noted the swiftness of the change of enumerated objects, which is enhanced by the word "flash". The description makes extensive use of introductory words and introductory sentences (subjective modality); modal words, indicative mood (single time plan), homogeneous components (including sentences expressing judgments), etc. Therefore, this description is dynamic.

Reasoning (or reflection) is a type of speech in which objects or phenomena are examined, their internal features are revealed, certain provisions are proved. Reasoning is characterized by special logical relationships between its constituent judgments, which form inferences or a chain of inferences on a topic, presented in a logically consistent form. This type of speech has a specific linguistic structure, depending on the logical basis of reasoning and on the meaning of the statement, and is characterized by cause-and-effect relationships. It is associated with the transfer of content-conceptual information. An example is a fragment from a speech on naval defense delivered by P. A. Stolypin in the State Duma on May 24, 1908: “Gentlemen! The realm of government power is the realm of action. When the commander on the battlefield sees that the battle is lost, he must concentrate on gathering his frustrated forces, uniting them into one. In the same way, after the catastrophe, the government is in a slightly different position than society and public representation ...>. It (the government. - Ya. K.) should unite its forces and try to restore the destruction. For this, of course, we need a plan, we need the united activity of all state bodies. This is the path taken by the real government from the first days when power was handed over to it.

In the “Logical Dictionary” by N. I. Kondakov (M., 1971, p. 449), the following definition is given: “Reasoning is a chain of conclusions on a topic, presented in a logically consistent form. Reasoning is also called a series of judgments related to a question, which follow one another in such a way that others necessarily follow or follow from previous judgments, and as a result, an answer to the question posed is obtained. When reasoning, the speaker comes to a new judgment.

Reasoning allows you to involve listeners in the process of speech, which leads to the activation of their attention, causing interest in what is being reported.

Let us give an example from the speech of G. A. Aleksandrov in the Zasulich case: “Stand up for the idea of moral honor and dignity of a political convict, proclaim this idea loudly enough and call for its recognition and assurance - these are the motives that led Zasulich, and the idea of a crime , which would be put in connection with the punishment of Bogolyubov, it seemed, could give satisfaction to all these motives. Zasulich decided to seek trial for her own crime in order to raise and provoke discussion of the forgotten case of the punishment of Bogolyubov.

When I commit a crime, thought Zasulich, then the silent question of punishing Bogolyubov will arise; my crime will cause a public trial, and Russia, in the person of its representatives, will be forced to pronounce the verdict not on me alone, but on the importance of the case, in the mind of Europe, that Europe that still likes to call us a barbarian state in which the attribute of the government is the whip.

These discussions determined the intentions of Zasulich. Therefore, the explanation of Zasulich, which, moreover, was given by her during her very initial interrogation and was then invariably supported, is absolutely reliable, which was indifferent to her: whether the result of the shot she fired would be death or only infliction of a wound. I will add from myself that for her purposes it would be the same even if the shot, obviously directed at a known person, did not produce any harmful effect at all, if a misfire or a miss followed. Not life, not the physical suffering of Adjutant General Trepov, was necessary for Zasulich, but her appearance in the dock, along with her the emergence of the question of the case with Bogolyubov. The main thing in reasoning is the object of thought. In this passage, the object of thought is the cause of the shot V. Zasulich. The speaker expresses his point of view on the event, then reproduces the arguments of V. Zasulich, based on her explanation during the initial interrogation. He, as it were, reconstructs V. Zasulich's thinking, then motivating her act. G. A. Alexandrov uses in this speech the “presence effect”, which consists in the fact that the speaker, as it were, reincarnates as the subject of his speech, talking about the events he allegedly witnessed or participated in, about the details that he allegedly saw, about thoughts that he knows, thereby involving listeners in speech, in this case, in V. Zasulich's reflection, forcing them to "be present" at the same time reflections and empathize. This technique is universal and can take place in other types of speech.

In reasoning, prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, and various types of stable combinations are used to connect individual parts: therefore, because, further, firstly, secondly, therefore, as a result, let us dwell on, note the following, move on to the next, etc. .

One can single out the actual reasoning - a chain of conclusions on any topic, presented in a logically consistent form, its goal is the derivation of new knowledge (most often, the commenting part comes first, then the key, or main, part); proof, the purpose of which is to substantiate the truth or falsity of the statements made (the key part usually precedes the commentary); an explanation, the purpose of which is to reveal, specify the stated content, establish the reliability of judgments regarding some obscure case (as a rule, the key part also comes first, then commenting). Let us give an example of the actual reasoning from the words of V. S. Solovyov, said at the grave of F. M. Dostoevsky; “We all came together here for the sake of our common love for Dostoevsky. But if Dostoevsky is so dear to all of us, it means that we all love what he himself loved most of all, what was dearest to him; so we believe in what he believed and what he preached. And why would we come here to honor his death, if we were alien to what he lived and acted for? But Dostoevsky loved, first of all, the living human soul in everything and everywhere, and he believed that we are all the race of God, he believed in the infinite divine power of the human soul, triumphant over all external violence and over any internal fall. This reasoning begins with a commentary part: the reasons that led everyone to the grave are revealed; then comes the main (key) part: what was Dostoevsky like, what did he believe in, and, consequently, what prompted him to come to say goodbye to him.

A special case of reasoning are common places - abstract reasoning, inspired by the topic of speech, not assigned to a specific situation, which reinforce the argumentation of the main presentation, are used to emotionally strengthen arguments and positions. These are discussions on general topics, for example, about honesty and decency, justice and humanity, about treating people, etc. A well-chosen general idea serves as one of the main elements of the composition and a support for specific material; the connection of common places with specific material increases the content orientation of speech. Thus, commonplaces are a kind of reasoning.

For example, in the speech of the lawyer in the case of Lesina, who is accused of complicity in embezzlement, there is such a common place about the work of the court: “The work of the court is often called creative. And they call it correctly, because special, very high and very complex requirements are presented to the court. To work creatively means not to skim the surface of life's phenomena, but to penetrate into the very core of these phenomena, to be able to find, though hidden, but the only true meaning. To work creatively means carefully, thoughtfully, avoiding mistakes and hasty conclusions, and restoring the real image of the defendant endowed with all life's originality. Some mistakenly believe that human science is the monopoly of literature. Human science is the most important science for the court, which no one teaches and which is always studied; it is a science that the court comprehends daily, from case to case. And she will help to understand Eva Mikhailovna Lesina more fully and better.

A common place can act as an argument, or argument, to prove a thesis. Such a role, for example, is played by three common places at the beginning of V. S. Solovyov’s speech, which he said at the Higher Women’s Courses on January 30, 1881, regarding the death of F. M. Dostoevsky: “In Dostoevsky, Russian society lost not only a poet or a writer, but but your spiritual leader.

While the historical process of the development of society is taking place, evil inevitably manifests itself, for the struggle against which there is a twofold kind of power: worldly and spiritual. The mundane limits the evil inclination to evil, fights it with punishments and violence, carrying out only some external order in society. The second power, spiritual, not recognizing this external order as an expression of unconditional truth, strives to realize this latter through internal spiritual power, so that evil is not limited only by the external order, but the completely conquered principle of good. And just as the highest worldly power in one way or another is concentrated in one person - the representative of the state, in the same way, the highest spiritual power in every era usually belongs in the whole people to one person, who most clearly strives for them, most strongly affects others with his preaching. Dostoevsky has recently been such a spiritual leader of the Russian people.

As long as the actual position of society is based on untruth and evil, while good and truth only strive to find their fulfillment, the position of such people is not the position of kings with their own power, but the position of prophets, often unrecognized. Their life is struggle and suffering. Such was the life of Dostoevsky<...>Dostoevsky entered the literary field with the story "Poor People"<...>. In the first general place, the idea of temporal and spiritual power during the period of historical events is carried out, and on the basis of this, it is concluded that Dostoevsky has recently been the spiritual leader of the Russian people.

The second common place is a discussion about good, evil and the position of the prophets, whose life is struggle and suffering. At the end - the conclusion: such was the life of Dostoevsky.

The third common place (not quoted here) is devoted to the development of the idea of prophets who feel untruth and give their lives to fight against it, rising above the level of material life. The text of the speech is accompanied by an analysis of the life, fate and philosophical direction of the writer's work.

Anticipating this analysis, common places set the direction of the speaker's speech, being its compositional part.

Common places can act as a final conclusion, following a specific analytical part of speech.

Functional semantic types often appear in a contaminated form, which leads to the emergence of new semantic shades and the formation of mixed types of oratory. For example, in judicial speech of the narrative type, while maintaining the meaning and function of the narrative, semantic shades of description or causal meanings of reasoning may appear. Let us give an example of such a contamination from V. D. Spasovich’s defense speech in the Dementiev case (refusal to obey the order of the lieutenant and insulting the latter): “There is a large house on Malaya Dvoryanskaya Street, occupied by the common people below; The mezzanine is occupied by Danilova and other tenants, then Dementiev lives on the mezzanine with his wife and daughter. Danilova has a dog, big and angry. From the verdict of the justice of the peace it is clear that she rushed at the children and frightened them. On April 5 this year, this dog terribly frightened the young daughter of Dementyev, whom her father passionately loves, for the sake of which he exchanged his freedom for military discipline. The girl was walking down the stairs on behalf of her parents; the dog attacked her, began to grab her by the heels. The youngster was frightened, bit her lip to the blood and rushed to run with a cry. At the cry of his daughter, the father ran out in what he was, in a shirt, in trousers, in boots, there was only a frock coat. He is a simple man, he is a lower rank, he often happened to walk in this way both in the yard and in the shop. And then there is no time to argue, the dog could be rabid. The dog is dragged into the apartment, he follows it, enters the hallway and declares: “Shame on you to keep such a dog.”<...>As for indecency, there are very different concepts. You treat a person of your circle differently than a person of a lower circle. Dementiev, the lower rank, knew his place in the house of the widow of the court adviser and did not go further than the front. Danilova was offended by the fact that a simple man entered her hall without a frock coat.<...>. In this fragment, all functional-semantic types of speech are present.

So, the functional and semantic types of speech in a speech usually alternate, one way or another replacing each other, which creates a special compositional and stylistic dynamics. For example, reasoning can prevail in an academic lecture, description and narration occupy a large place in a legal speech.

As we can see, description, narration and reflection have constructive-stylistic and semantic differences that determine the use of these types in speech.

In functional and semantic terms, oratorical speech is regulated and systematized; the choice of one or another functional-semantic type depends on the object of speech and the purpose of the statement.

Oratorical speech is polemical in nature, because it reflects the contradictions of modern life and the conflicts of communication. You can understand the organization of oratorical speech based on the positions it opposes, by comparing two (or more) speeches or different opinions, in other words, two or more plans that can be taken as thesis and antithesis (positive and negative plans).

In the oratorical speech, a complex and systematic organization of the opposite meaning, features of expression, and argumentative structure can be traced, which leads to its definition as specially persuasive. Thus, the speaker builds his speech as a holistic opposing semantic plan, organizing the movement of speech as a complex expanded thought, starting from the opposite meaning.

N. P. Karabchevsky, in his defense speech in the case of the wreck of the steamer "Vladimir", speaks directly about the polemical nature of court speeches: “The normal type of criminal adversarial process is an open competition between two struggling parties, both of which have their visors raised. The prosecutor and the victim are one side, the defendant and the defender are the other. One attacks and strikes, the other reflects them. The present process is a somewhat different phenomenon. The fight is reminiscent of a crowd, as if a general dump of "various interests, seeking to evade the generally accepted conditions and rules of an open struggle. Here, the judges who decide the outcome of the struggle have to look both ways. You won’t even understand right away who is against whom, you need to figure it all out" .

Two types of polemicalness can be distinguished: 1) implicit (or hidden, internal) and 2) explicit (or open, external). The first type of polemicalness is manifested in almost all speeches, since the speaker has to convince the audience that he is right, without naming possible dissenting listeners or opponents who may be in this audience or outside it.

Explicit polemicism is associated with open defense of one's views and refutation of opponents. One can speak of an unreal opponent when the speaker, in an effort to express his views, refutes the existing ones, fights with an imaginary opponent. About the real - if the opponent is personified, named, meanings are formulated on his behalf that are subject to refutation.

Since explicit polemic is directed at a specific, real person, a controversy may arise between the speaker and this person if the latter publicly defends his views. Controversy is a bilateral (multilateral) public communication of speakers, a free exchange of opinions, a dispute in the process of discussing an issue at a meeting, conference, etc., as well as in the press in order to best solve the problems under consideration.

The polemical form of speech involves a thorough analysis of the original factual material, statistical data, scientific problems, the opinions of various people, etc., a rigorous argument based on this, as well as an emotional impact on the listener, which is necessary in the process of persuasion.

Let us cite as an example of such an analysis a fragment of a speech in defense of L. M. Gulak-Artemovskaya (accusation of forgery of bills): instincts, which, judging by the reviews of the brothers and Polevoy, Pastukhov did not reveal at all. And is the game of fools itself proven?

The prosecutor says in his speech: "We will prove them to you - we have books and figures." The defense sees for the first time a prosecutor who threatens to charge rather than bring them; but she is not afraid of threats and will meet the accusation<...>.

The prosecutor says that the signatures on the bills are not similar to the original signatures of Pastukhov, therefore, the bills are forged. As a lawyer, I must say that this "therefore" is somewhat premature.

Speakers use all possible means from a rich polemical arsenal: hints, irony, sarcasm, meaningful omissions, categorical value judgments, antithesis, comparisons, remarks, relief, “pictures” of speech, proverbs, sayings and other classical oratory techniques associated with speech counterplan. The credibility of a polemical speech largely depends on the arguments that substantiate the truth of the main idea, as well as on the degree to which facts and statements that do not require justification, previously made generalizations, exact quotations and statements are used as evidence.

Thanks to the polemical nature, the analytical side of the speech, its informative significance is enhanced, and the speaker's commentary position is manifested. The polemical nature of the speech is associated with a number of circumstances: there are always people in the audience who have the opposite point of view or are skeptical about the ideas of the author, and these people should be convinced; truths expressed in this form are easier for the audience to digest, activate the thought processes of the listeners; this form allows you to compare and evaluate different theories and thereby verify the authenticity of the judgment.

Let us dwell on a brief analysis of the dispute between A. V. Lunacharsky and Metropolitan A. I. Vvedensky on September 21, 1925. The report of A. V. Lunacharsky is the first and main one, which largely determined its structure. It is subordinated to the proof of the main thesis: “In this short preliminary report of mine, I want to dwell on one central idea<...>is there only one experiential world in which we live<...>, or next to it there is some other supersensible, invisible world that we must take into account<...>"(p. 290). This thesis is proved throughout the speech, in which implicit polemicism is mainly manifested, since the speaker proves his point of view only by assuming the opponent’s point of view and referring to him in his speech only three times: in the first case, he expresses confidence, in the next two he makes an assumption .

(1) “In the normal experience of a normal person, absolutely nothing speaks for the existence, apart from the real world, of some other “other world”<...>Meanwhile, and my opponent, of course, will not deny this, this line is constantly drawn, and this is the peculiarity of all kinds of mystical or idealistic ideas” (p. 290).

(2) “My opponent in his speech will almost certainly speak very high words about what a beautiful thing immortality, eternity, flight to God, striving for absolutism<...>"(p. 298).

(3) “My opponent, perhaps, will also refer to numerous learned people, for whom learning does not interfere with hoping for the Lord God and on his path, but I reject such an objection in advance and declare that scientists are not always complete scientists” (with .298).

In the first case (1) we can talk about the reception of polemical certainty, in the second and third (2, 3) - about the reception of polemical conjecture (forecasting the opponent's theses).

In the response speech of A. I. Vvedensky more than in the speech of A. V. Lunacharsky, explicit polemicalness is manifested, since the speaker not only sets out his point of view (which A. V. Lunacharsky did in his speech), but also defends his positions, as evidenced by the very beginning of the speech: “A little technical note. I received a number of notes yesterday and today as to why I did not object to what Anatoly Vasil'evich said yesterday in his concluding remarks. The fact is that the real dispute, as far as I know, arranged by the Leningrad Political Education, from which I received an invitation to speak here, is organized as a report by Anatoly Vasilyevich Lunacharsky, whose opponent I am, and, as an opponent, I do not have a word after the speech (final. - Ya. K.) of the speaker. That is why I did not object to Anatoly Vasilievich yesterday. This did not mean, of course, that I had nothing to object to him yesterday, but this, it seems to me, despite the numerous requests addressed to me, does not oblige me today to return to yesterday<...>I do not return to yesterday - let no one get angry - because yesterday I did not receive enough material for an objection ”(p. 299).

In this speech, the features of polemicality are fully manifested: the polemical “I” (a manifestation of egocentrism), the refutation of the opponent’s theses by logical evidence, operating with facts, references to research, parries, analogies, repetitions, comparisons, emphasizing the ethical forms of polemic (for example, referring to to the opponent "respected"; "dear Anatoly Vasilyevich"), etc.

Let's give some examples.

1. A parry that allows you to note the opponent’s unethical behavior: “Anatoly Vasilyevich wanted to jokingly give me several comparisons - from the Apostle Peter, below whom I was, to the camel, with which I was fully adequate. But, citizens, it seems to me that such zoological witticism offends me just as little as it adorns the one who uses it (Applause). That is why I believe that yesterday's concluding remarks by Anatoly Vasilyevich are an objection<...>obliges me to give a serious, as far as I can - I'm a lost man, I wear a cassock - answer ”(p. 299-300). Here we can also note the technique of self-abasement - deliberate humiliation, humiliation, belittling of oneself.

2. Bringing facts that the opponent deliberately ignores in order to “purity” his evidence: “Science, scientists recognize God. This fact seems highly unpleasant to the atheist, because the eminent representatives of science still speak openly about their confession of God. Indeed, in our day, Pasteur said that while working in his laboratory, he prays, because as his scientific experience accumulates, his faith grows.<...>. The same Planck, who was here at the academy celebration, in some of his works on physics quite definitely says that the modern development of physics should not only not eliminate the spiritual worldview, but, on the contrary, strengthen the spiritual worldview. These facts remain facts - stubborn and unpleasant for an atheist, and, therefore, they must be rejected - and the usual withdrawal is made: after all, these are bourgeois scientists ”(pp. 300-301).

3. Belittling the factual analysis of the opponent: “Citizens, the origin of religion is much deeper than it sometimes seems to an atheist. It seems to me that anti-religious propaganda is so weak here in the Soviet Union (this is not a paradox, I will prove it) because the anti-religious person is fighting (I am talking about the ordinary anti-religious and ordinary anti-religious literature) not with religion in its essence, not with religion. in her depths. From the sea of religion they draw water with scoops, they measure the sea of religion by the lots of their ingenuity. And it turns out that the sea is shallow, the bottom is close. In fact, the ocean of religion is boundless, and the atheist did not reach its bottom, because its yardstick, it was scooped up, its lot has too 1 short handle” (p. 302).

In his concluding remarks, A. V. Lunacharsky naturally sharpens and intensifies the polemical tone, ending his speech with the following reasoning: “Comrades, I am very pleased that the discussion does not end with our speech today. No discussion, no objection and counter-objection can ever be considered definitively convincing. Everyone has the feeling that the enemy would have hardly objected to the new words that came to mind, and in addition, the living argument that you hear during the evening is erased from your memory. Therefore, it is very good that our discussion will be published, verified by both disputants, that those who are really deeply interested in the questions posed and believe that this discussion sheds light on them can calmly read these and other arguments with a pencil in hand, and that each of us in the future - in those books that we will prepare - he will be able to dwell on the positions occupied by the enemy ”(pp. 318-319).

Polemicality is inherent, therefore, in any functional-semantic type of speech, since it is associated with persuasion.

In the construction of text and speech in general, a lot depends on what task the speaker (writer) sets for himself, on the purpose of speech. It is quite natural that the author will build his text differently when he talks about an event, describes the nature or explains the causes of any phenomena.

Over the centuries, functional-semantic types of speech were gradually formed, that is, methods, schemes, verbal structures that are used depending on the purpose of speech and its meaning.

The most common functional and semantic types of speech are description, narration and reasoning. Each of these types is distinguished in accordance with the purpose and content of speech. This also defines some of the most typical grammatical means of text design.

The purpose of the text	Content and form of the text	Typical grammatical design aids
Text type: Description
1) Enumeration of signs, properties, elements of the subject of speech. 2) Indication of its belonging to the class of objects. 3) Indication of the purpose of the subject, methods and areas of its functioning.	1) The idea of the subject as a whole is given at the beginning or at the end. 2) The detailing of the main thing is carried out taking into account the semantic significance of the details. 3) The structure of individual parts of the text (description elements) is similar to the structure of the text as a whole. 4) Methods of comparison, analogy, opposition are used. 5) The text is easily folded.	a) with direct word order; b) compound nominal predicate; c) with verbal forms of simultaneous action; d) with present tense verbs in a timeless meaning; e) with defining characteristics.
Text Type: Narrative
A story about an event showing its course in development, highlighting the main (nodal) facts and showing their relationship.	1) The logical sequence is observed. 2) Dynamism, change of events is emphasized. 3) The composition is chronologized.	Simple and complex sentences: a) with a verbal predicate of the perfect form; b) with species-temporal forms that emphasize the nature and change of events; c) with the expression of causal and temporal conditioning.
Text type: Reasoning
Study of the essential properties of objects and phenomena, substantiation of their relationship.	1) There is a thesis (a position that is being proved), arguments (judgments that justify the correctness of the thesis) and a demonstration (method of proof). 2) Reflections, conclusions, explanations are used. 3) The semantic parts of the statement are given in a logical sequence. 4) Everything not related to the proof is omitted.	Simple widespread and complex sentences: a) with participial and participle turnovers; b) with circumstances or adverbial clauses of cause, effect, purpose; c) with verbs of different aspectual forms.

We will demonstrate the structure and method of designing different functional and semantic types of texts using the following examples.

As an example description text an excerpt from the story of A.S. Pushkin "The Captain's Daughter" with a description of the appearance of Emelyan Pugachev:

His appearance seemed remarkable to me: he was about forty, medium height, thin and broad-shouldered. Gray hair appeared in his black beard; living large eyes and ran. His face had an expression rather pleasant, but roguish. The hair was cut in a circle; he was wearing a tattered coat and Tatar trousers.

Describing the appearance of a person so far unknown to him, Pyotr Grinev first of all conveys his impression of this appearance, highlighting those details that seemed to him the most remarkable. So, a general idea of a stranger is given at the beginning of the description: His appearance seemed to me wonderful. This is followed by a characterization of the hero: age, physique, face, hair and elements of clothing. The author seeks not only to give an idea of Pugachev's appearance, but also to show how these details can be used to form an opinion about his lifestyle, character, and behavior. For example, a strong physique clearly indicates an active lifestyle. Hairstyle and clothes are about the social status of a stranger: this is a poor Yaik Cossack. But the author focuses on the expression of the eyes. It is from this detail that the reader can understand that Pugachev has a lively mind. This is not a villain, on the contrary, his appearance is conducive to himself, but at the same time, Grinev's counselor is clearly hiding something (cf .: shifty eyes and picaresque expression).

If we turn to the grammatical means of text design, we can state the following. The description is dominated by simple sentences or chains of complex non-union sentences with direct word order. In addition, compound nominal predicates attract attention: seemed wonderful; was about forty, medium height, thin and broad-shouldered; were shorn. Verbs (mostly imperfective) indicate the simultaneity of the action. The use of the forms of the past, and not the present tense in a timeless sense, is due to the fact that the narrator tells about a meeting that took place in the past ( was about forty; the eyes kept running; the face had an expression; hair was cut; he had an army coat on). Finally, in almost every sentence you can find members with various kinds of defining characteristics: remarkable; thin, broad-shouldered, black beard; big lively eyes etc.

In the same story, A.S. Pushkin meet and microtexts-narratives, For example:

I actually saw a white cloud at the edge of the sky, which I took at first for a distant mound. The coachman explained to me that the cloud foreshadowed a blizzard.
I heard about the blizzards there, that entire carts were covered by them. Savelich, in accordance with the coachman's opinion, advised him to turn back. But the wind seemed to me not strong; I hoped to get to the next station in advance and ordered to go faster.
The coachman galloped; but kept looking to the east. The horses ran together. The wind meanwhile grew stronger by the hour. The cloud turned into a white cloud, which rose heavily, grew and gradually enveloped the sky. A fine snow began to fall - and suddenly it fell in flakes. The wind howled; there was a blizzard. In an instant, the dark sky mingled with the snowy sea. Everything is gone. “Well, sir,” shouted the coachman, “trouble: a snowstorm!” ...
I looked out of the wagon: everything was dark and whirlwind. The wind howled with such fierce expressiveness that it seemed animated; the snow covered me and Savelich; the horses walked at a pace - and soon they stopped.

This microtext tells about the snowstorm that Grinev got into while traveling to his duty station. The description of the snowstorm in this case is given precisely as a narrative, since the logical sequence of events is clearly observed, and the whole composition is chronologized: a white cloud appears in the sky; Grinev, despite the hesitation of the coachman and Savelich, decides to continue the journey; the coachman lets the horses run; the wind is picking up; a blizzard begins; a blizzard turns into a snowstorm; exhausted horses stop. The change of events in time is expressed using perfective verbs: I saw a cloud; I ordered to go faster; the coachman galloped; the cloud turned into a white cloud; it's snowing etc. The same events that are included in the same time period are described using sentences with imperfective verbs (cf .: I heard; Savelich advised etc.). Sentences with perfective verbs are indicators of key facts, they signal the change of one event by another, and each new event is thought in relation to the previous one (in this case, this connection is chronological).

specifics reasoning text can be demonstrated by the example of Grinev’s road thoughts after losing a hundred rubles to Zurin and a quarrel with Savelich:

My travel thoughts were not very pleasant. My loss, at the then prices, was important. I could not help admitting in my heart that my behavior in the Simbirsk tavern was stupid, and I felt guilty before Savelitch. All this tormented me.

The reasoning begins with the statement of the thesis: My travel thoughts were not very pleasant. And although further we do not find subordinate reasons, the very arrangement of subsequent conclusions is perceived as an explanation of the reasons for Grinev's dissatisfaction with himself. The arguments are the amount of the loss, "stupid" behavior and guilt towards the old servant. In conclusion, a conclusion is made about the internal state of the narrator, which is perceived as a consequence of "woeful conclusions": All this tormented me.

In general, the most striking examples of reasoning can be found in scientific texts (see the excerpt from Yu.M. Lotman's book cited in exercise 123).

Of course, the text may contain different functional and semantic types of speech. So, very often the narrative is combined with the description (this can also be seen in the example of the above passages). Complementing each other, they often merge so organically that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between them. Wed a combination of these types of speech in an excerpt from the story of I.S. Turgenev "Bezhin meadow":

I went right through the bushes[narration]. Meanwhile the night drew near and grew like a thundercloud; it seemed that, together with the evening vapors, darkness rose from everywhere and even poured from above[description]. I came across some non-torn, overgrown path; I went along it, carefully looking ahead[narration]. Everything around grew black and subsided, some quails occasionally screamed[description]. A small night bird, inaudibly and low rushing on its soft wings, almost bumped into me and timidly dived to the side. I went out to the edge of the bushes and wandered along the field boundary[narration]. Already with difficulty I distinguished distant objects; the field was vaguely white all around; behind it, with every moment advancing in huge clubs, gloomy darkness rose up. My footsteps reverberated through the freezing air. The pale sky began to turn blue again - but that was already the blue of the night. The stars flashed, moved on it[description].

Oratory is heterogeneous in its composition, since in the process of thinking a person tends to reflect various, objectively existing connections between objects, events, individual judgments, which in turn finds expression in various functional and semantic types of speech: description, narration, reasoning (thinking ). Monological types of speech are built on the basis of reflecting mental diachronic, synchronic, cause-and-effect processes. Oratorical speech in this regard is a monologue narrative - information about developing actions, a monologue description - information about the simultaneous features of an object, monologue reasoning - cause-and-effect relationships. Semantic types are present in speech depending on its type, purpose and on the speaker's conceptual intention, which determines the inclusion or non-inclusion of one or another semantic type in the general fabric of oratory speech; the change of these types is caused by the speaker's desire to more fully express his thought, reflect his position, help listeners perceive the speech and most effectively influence the audience, and also give the speech a dynamic character. At the same time, in various types of oratory there will be a different ratio of these types, because in reality they all mix, interact, and their isolation is very conditional.

This type is resorted to if it is necessary to confirm the statements made by the speaker with specific examples or when analyzing some situations. The speaker's task is to depict the sequence of events, to convey this sequence with the necessary accuracy. Thus, meaningful and factual information is transmitted, and it is clothed in different forms. Firstly, the speaker can speak as a participant in the events, secondly, state the events from the words of a third person, and thirdly, model the series of events without indicating the source of information. The speaker conveys events that take place as if before the eyes of the audience, or introduces memories of events developing in the past.

It is possible to single out specific, generalized and informational narration. Concrete is a narrative about dismembered, chronologically sequential specific actions of one or more actors, for example, in a judicial speech; generalized - about specific actions, but characteristic of many situations, typical for a certain situation, for example, in a scientific presentation; informational - a message about any actions or states without their specification and detailed, chronological sequence; it most often takes the form of a retelling of the actions of the subject or the form of indirect speech.

The narration in speeches can be built according to the scheme of the traditional three-hour articulation, i.e. it has its own plot, introducing into the essence of the matter and predetermining the movement of the plot, the deployment of the action and the denouement, containing an overt or covert emotional assessment of the event by the speaker.

Description - this is a stating part, as a rule, giving a static picture, an idea of the nature, composition, structure, properties, qualities of an object by listing both its essential and non-essential features at the moment.

Description can be of two types: static and dynamic. The first gives the object in statics, the signs of the object indicated in speech can mean its temporary or permanent properties, qualities and states. For example, a description of a place, an action in a court speech, or a description of an object in a political speech. The description of the second type is less common; Thus, any experience in scientific speech usually appears in development, dynamics.

Descriptions are very diverse both in content and form. They can be, for example, figurative. The speaker, trying to inform the listeners of the required amount of information, gives not only a detailed description of the object, but also its characteristics, assessment, recreating a certain picture, which brings speech closer to the description in fiction.

In the description, as a rule, the forms of the present, past and future tenses are used. For judicial speech, the use of the past tense is most typical, for academic speech - the present.

Descriptions are more or less homogeneous in their syntactic structure. As can be seen from the previous examples, it usually represents an enumeration of key words or words denoting the features of a describing object, in a direct or figurative sense, which causes an enumerative intonation, resulting in a complete image of the object.

N.I. Kondakov’s “Logical Dictionary” gives the following definition: “Reasoning is a chain of conclusions on a topic, presented in a logically consistent form. Reasoning is also called a series of judgments relating to a question, which follow one another, in such a way that others necessarily follow or follow from previous judgments, and as a result, an answer to the question is obtained. When reasoning, the speaker comes to a new judgment.

Reasoning allows you to involve listeners in the process of speech, which leads to the activation of their attention, causing interest in what is being reported.

It is possible to single out the actual reasoning - a chain of conclusions on any topic, presented in a logically consistent form, its goal is to derive a new meaning (most often, the commenting part comes first, then the key, or main part); proof, the purpose of which is to substantiate the truth or falsity of the statements made (the key part usually precedes the commentary); an explanation, the purpose of which is to reveal, specify the stated content, establish the reliability of judgments regarding some obscure case (as a rule, the key part also comes first, then commenting). Let us give an example of the actual reasoning from the words of V.S. Solovyov, said at the grave of F.M. Dostoevsky: “We all came together here for the sake of our common love for Dostoevsky. But if Dostoevsky is so dear to all of us, it means that we all love what he himself loved most of all, what was dearest to him; so we believe in what he believed and what he preached. And why would we come here to honor his death, if we were alien to what he lived and acted for? And Dostoevsky loved, first of all, the living human soul in everything and everywhere, and he believed that we are all the race of God, he believed in the divine infinite power of the human soul, triumphant over all external violence and over any internal fall. This reasoning begins with a commentary part: the reasons that led everyone to the grave are revealed; then comes the main (key) part: what was Dostoevsky like, what did he believe in, and, consequently, what prompted him to come to say goodbye to him.

A special case of reasoning are common places - abstract reasoning, inspired by the topic, speeches that are not fixed for a specific situation, which reinforce the argumentation of the main presentation, are used to emotionally strengthen arguments and provisions. These are discussions on general topics, for example, about honesty and decency, justice and humanity, about treating people, etc.

A well-chosen general idea serves as one of the main elements of the composition and a support for a particular material; the connection of common places with specific material increases the content orientation of speech. Thus, commonplaces are a kind of reasoning.

So, the functional and semantic types of speech in a speech usually alternate, one way or another replacing each other, which creates a special compositional and stylistic dynamics. For example, reasoning can prevail in an academic lecture, while description and narration occupy a large place in a legal speech.

As we can see, description, narration and reasoning have constructive-stylistic and semantic differences that determine the use of these types in speech.

Oratorical speech is polemical in nature, because it reflects the contradictions of modern life and the conflicts of communication.

Two types of polemic can be distinguished: implicit (or hidden, internal) and explicit (or open, external). The first type of polemicalness is manifested in almost all speeches, since the speaker has to convince the audience that he is right, without naming possible dissenting listeners or opponents who may be in this audience or outside it.

Explicit polemicism is associated with open defense of one's views and refutation of opponents. One can speak of an unreal opponent when the speaker, in an effort to express his views, refutes the existing ones, fights with an imaginary opponent. About the real - if the opponent is personified, meanings are formulated on his behalf that are subject to refutation.

Since explicit polemic is directed at a specific, real person, a controversy may arise between the speaker and this person if the latter publicly defends his views. Controversy is a bilateral (multilateral) public communication of speakers, an exchange of views, a dispute in the process of discussing an issue at a meeting, conference, and also in the press in order to best solve the problems under consideration.

The polemical form of speech involves a thorough analysis of the original factual material, statistical data, scientific problems, the opinions of various people, etc., a rigorous argumentation based on this, as well as an emotional impact on the listener, which is necessary in the process of persuasion.