Роль доповіді у формуванні риторичної культури філолога (з досвіду практичної роботи)
Вантажиться...
Дата
2017
Назва журналу
Номер ISSN
Назва тому
Видавець
Анотація
У статті обґрунтовується, що основою формування риторичної особистості філолога є його риторична культура, яка охоплює ефективне мислення, якісне мовлення, високий культурно-комунікативний рівень, успішну реалізацію законів риторики в будь-яких ситуаціях спілкування. Доводиться, що важливу роль у формуванні риторичної культури відіграє вміння готувати й виголошувати доповіді на різні теми. Аналізуються традиційні та інноваційні форми й методи роботи зі студентами-філологами під час вивчення теми «Доповідь в академічному красномовстві» в курсі «Сучасна риторика».
The article explains that the formation basis of philologist rhetorical identity is its rhetorical culture that embraces effective thinking, speech quality, high cultural and communicative level, successful implementation of the rhetorical law in all the situations of communication. It is proved that an important role in rhetorical culture formation plays an ability to prepare reports and pronounce them on various topics. It analyzes traditional and innovative forms and work methods with students-philologists in the study of the topic “Report of the academic eloquence” in the course “Modern Rhetoric”. During the lecture “Rhetorical culture of research report” we focus philologists’ attention on the theoretical aspects of report genre, on the analysis of its preparation stages, on consideration general and distinctive features of the report as an oral genre and articles, qualification work, etc. as written scientific works, based on materials that report pronounced. We interpret the report as a genre of oral academic eloquence, which represents the study materials on a particular topic. We are working on preparation stages of the scientific report: invention, disposition, elocution, memoria (lat.), action (lat.), and relaxation. We investigate the particular rhetorical skills during the preparation and publication of the report. We provide advices on overcoming of public speaking fear and conduct master classes based on materials the author’s article. An important aspect of students’ individual work we can see processing lectures, recommended literature, preparation of reports. In the practice we provide a rhetorical analysis the reports of the famous Ukrainian linguists P. Hritsenko, A. Ponomarev, A. Moisiienko and other scientists. We compare articles and reports; find out general distinctive features of the written text and oral report. We immersed in a rhetorical analysis of the intercepted reports to express compliments and advices. The result of conducted training is self-conscious beliefs of students, that the key to the successful report is its scientific-theoretical validity, deep factual material, its vision of the problem and high rhetorical culture of the speaker (logical, psychological, verbal, non-verbal). The result of processing threads is to improve public speaking skills of students-philologists and the growth of professional skills.
The article explains that the formation basis of philologist rhetorical identity is its rhetorical culture that embraces effective thinking, speech quality, high cultural and communicative level, successful implementation of the rhetorical law in all the situations of communication. It is proved that an important role in rhetorical culture formation plays an ability to prepare reports and pronounce them on various topics. It analyzes traditional and innovative forms and work methods with students-philologists in the study of the topic “Report of the academic eloquence” in the course “Modern Rhetoric”. During the lecture “Rhetorical culture of research report” we focus philologists’ attention on the theoretical aspects of report genre, on the analysis of its preparation stages, on consideration general and distinctive features of the report as an oral genre and articles, qualification work, etc. as written scientific works, based on materials that report pronounced. We interpret the report as a genre of oral academic eloquence, which represents the study materials on a particular topic. We are working on preparation stages of the scientific report: invention, disposition, elocution, memoria (lat.), action (lat.), and relaxation. We investigate the particular rhetorical skills during the preparation and publication of the report. We provide advices on overcoming of public speaking fear and conduct master classes based on materials the author’s article. An important aspect of students’ individual work we can see processing lectures, recommended literature, preparation of reports. In the practice we provide a rhetorical analysis the reports of the famous Ukrainian linguists P. Hritsenko, A. Ponomarev, A. Moisiienko and other scientists. We compare articles and reports; find out general distinctive features of the written text and oral report. We immersed in a rhetorical analysis of the intercepted reports to express compliments and advices. The result of conducted training is self-conscious beliefs of students, that the key to the successful report is its scientific-theoretical validity, deep factual material, its vision of the problem and high rhetorical culture of the speaker (logical, psychological, verbal, non-verbal). The result of processing threads is to improve public speaking skills of students-philologists and the growth of professional skills.
Опис
Ключові слова
академічне красномовство, доповідь, культура мовлення, культура мислення, культура спілкування, риторична освіченість, риторична культура, риторична особистість доповідача, academic eloquence, report, speech culture, culture of thinking, culture of communication, rhetorical education, rhetorical culture, rhetorical identity of the speaker
Бібліографічний опис
Герман, В. Роль доповіді у формуванні риторичної культури філолога (з досвіду практичної роботи) [Текст] / В. Герман // Педагогічні науки: теорія, історія, інноваційні технології : науковий журнал / МОН України, Сумський держ. пед. ун-т ім. А. С. Макаренка ; [редкол.: А. А. Сбруєва, М. А. Бойченко, О. Є. Антонова та ін.]. – Суми : СумДПУ ім. А. С. Макаренка, 2017. – № 2 (66). – С. 40–50.