Techniques aimed at the development of dialogical speech

The article considers the special significance of the dialogue in the process of the schoolchild's personality formation, the development of his intellectual, communicative and spiritual and moral qualities. The formation of monologic speech and the ability to conduct a dialogue is a key task of technology for the development of critical thinking. All the techniques and strategies in this technology are somehow built on discussion, on the ability to communicate and argue coherently, giving arguments and evidence. They are called upon to develop critical thinking. And most importantly, they teach coherent, logically built and reasoned speech. Teaching dialogical speech should be conducted at all levels of learning. It happens that teachers in high school do not pay due attention to this issue, believing that a teenager of 14-16 years old can already speak coherently. But in addition to logical presentation, the school should teach the imagery of thinking, critical judgments, the ability to conduct discussions and disputes. Therefore, using those or other techniques that involve dialogues, it is desirable to constantly emphasize attention to the requirements for oral speech.

Fluency in the language involves the ability to respond to all kinds of situations in real life. Therefore, when teaching any language, one should pay special attention to the maximum development of oral speech, in particular, dialogue as one of its forms.

Before proceeding with the construction of a methodological system for teaching dialogical speech, it is necessary to consider the linguistic aspect of the dialogue.

Dialogue is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. Depending on what tasks the researchers set themselves for, the study of it is conducted in a variety of directions, therefore in modern science there is still no single definition of dialogue.

Thus, the "Dictionary of Linguistic Terms" characterizes dialogue as "one of the forms of speech, in which each utterance is directly addressed to the interlocutor and turns out to be limited to the immediate subjects of the conversation" [1,132].

"Linguistic Encyclopaedic Dictionary" gives the following definition of dialogical speech: "Dialogue speech (from the Greek dialogos-conversation, conversation of two) is a form (type) of speech, consisting of the exchange of statements-remarks, the language composition of which is influenced by direct perception, activating the role of the addressee In speech activity of the addressee" [2, 135].

Unlike linguists, psychologists in the vocabulary of socio-psychological concepts under the editorship of E.S. Kuzmin and V.E. Semenov emphasize the structural features of the dialogue: "Dialogue - a form of speech communication, consisting of alternating replicas of participants" [3, 23].

In the dictionary-reference book "Pedagogical speech" edited by Т.А. Ladyzhenskaya, the main features of the dialogue are formulated as follows: "Dialogue is a variety (type) of speech, under which there is an exchange of mutually conditioned remarks (with visual and auditory perception of the interlocutor" [4, 42].

So, despite the differences in wording, the dialogue almost everywhere appears as a form of speech communication, the sphere of manifestation of human speech activity, as one of the forms of existence of language.

The beginning of the development of studying the dialogue as a "universal form of communication" is associated with the name of L.P. Yakubinskyin Russian philology. His article "About Dialogue Speech" played a large role in posing the problem in various aspects of its consideration. The language specifics of the dialogue LP.Yakubinsky associates with its functional side and with external features of its implementation: the presence of several interlocutors, a relatively rapid exchange of cues in the visual and auditory perception, the presence of facial expressions, gestures and so on [5].

In the study of dialogue, the question of comparing dialogue and monologue is highlighted. The foundations of this comparison in Russian linguistics were laid down in the works of L.V. Shcherba, L.P. Yakubinsky, Bakhtin and In the studies of L.V. Shcherba and L.P. Yakubinsky it is seen the idea of the "naturalness" of the dialogue and the "artificiality" of the monologue. Thus, L.V. Shcherba noted that "monologue is largely an artificial linguistic form" (173, 4), that "language" lives "and changes mainly in dialogue" [6,36].

According to L.P. Yakubinsky, "any interaction of people is precisely interaction; It essentially seeks to avoid one-sidedness, wants to be two-sided, "dialogic" and "monologic”. Just as the question is almost involuntary, because of the constant association between thoughts and pronunciation, it generates a response, like this and every speech irritation, continuously it has not been, exciting, as its reaction, thoughts and feelings, it is necessary to push the body to speech Reaction ... Dialogue ... is more a phenomenon of "nature" than a monologue "[6, 133]. According to the Oxford English online dictionary, the English term dialogue stems from theold French dialoge, taken in turn from the Greek dialogos, which loosely translates as converse with or speaking through [7]. A number of scholars have further defined dialogue. Although their definitions have similarities, they also differ depending on the author’s view of dialogue and its purpose.Burbules and Kazepides argue that dialogue is continuous with conversation or chatting, although it is more serious and challenging; it may also lead to new understandings. In addition, Burbules and Kazepides reinforce that dialogue does not have a predetermined destination; dialogue accepts that there are different views, but it expects a commitment to communicate. In contrast to problem-solving sessions, dialogue need not lead to consensus, but both parties may gain a deeper understanding. This view of dialogue perhaps has an ideal of dialogue in mind, with an emphasis on cognitive understandings [8].

The concept of dialogue is most often linked to the Greek classics. Plato viewed dialogue as the most important tool for teaching as it leads to rational knowledge. Plato makes the important distinction that logos or reason develops out of human activities: our thinking is not something we already hold in our mind; rather, it is obtained through language in dialogue, linking our thinking to the sociocultural and political conditions of dialogue [9]. Dialogue can thus be seen as the fundamental link between philosophy and education. Dewey views education as the laboratory in which philosophic directions become concrete and are tested [8, 1]. The next section discusses dialogue in educational settings.

In trying to define dialogue, there is a risk that elements of the definition may become normative and definitive, implying that there is only one correct way or a particular standardof dialogue. It needs to be noted that any attempt to fully define dialogue automatically turns the dialogue about dialogue into a monologic event, describing what dialogue ought to be and thereby finalising the definition, which is in direct contrast with what dialogue aims to do.

Dialogue is the conversation of two persons. Unlike a monologue, conversation can be interrupted, largely depends on emotions, the nature of the conversation and the topic, rarely consists of completed proposals.

Depending on the degree of participation of interlocutors, the following types of dialogical speech are distinguished:

• One-way interrogation - questions are asked only by one of the This type includes interviews, questionnaires, social surveys.
• Bilateral questioning - participants are equally involved in the conversation (discussions, disputes).
• Exchange of opinions - there are no questions, only opinions and

In the methodology, standard dialogues (or dialogues of etiquette character) are highlighted - these are dialogues used in typical situations (seller-buyer, boss-subordinate, etc.)

Review of techniques and techniques aimed at the development of coherent monological and dialogical speech

• A pattern of telling is a living, vivid description of an object or phenomenon that is given to children as a role This method of teaching monologic speech is used in elementary school when demonstrating how, for example, a rule, event description, etc. should sound.

The sample should be short, accessible for understanding, easy to remember, pronounced clearly, loudly, necessarily expressively.

• Analysis of the pattern of the This technique helps to understand the structure of speech, isolate individual components, work on intonation. It is often practiced in primary schools. For example, you can take any dialogue or monologue from a read work and ask students to identify where the introduction (the beginning of the conversation), where the ending. Separately, the students select the key words with colored pencils, on which it is necessary to lower or increase the intonation.
• Joined storytelling is another method for initial Here the teacher starts the sentence, and the child finishes it. Either they compose a monologue in turn.
• Partial storytelling is a familiar technique, when you need to restore it completely in the You can suggest the beginning of the story, the middle, the end. It's easier if it's an event story. In high school, you can offer for a partial story-telling reflections or abstract texts-reasoning.
• A narrative story based on a picture (subject, plot, landscape, series of paintings) is one of the most effective techniques that helps to develop coherent monologic It is noted from practice that this technique is often practiced by the Kazakh language teacher in primary and secondary schools. Why is he forgotten in high school? After all, for high school students and paintings you can pick up interesting, appropriate age, and the conditions for creating a story complicate.
• Retelling - practice is practiced at all levels of And to learn retelling begin already in class. Admission is effective, because it allows you to develop not only the imagery of thinking, but also the logical presentation of thoughts. While retelling the text, the child learns to understand its structure, and remembering the most vivid phrases of speech and sentences promotes the development of memory and artistry of speech.
• Deductive method is a way of teaching dialogue. It is often used in foreign language lessons, although it is quite acceptable in other lessons. The essence of the method is that a ready dialogue is given as a This can be situational dialogue, etiquette, professional, which uses the stable expressions that are typical for this situation. The sample is carefully studied, and then, on its basis, form their own dialogue.

For example, there is a lesson-court. This process is characterized by its own replicas and stable expressions. Therefore, in advance with the students are studying how the judicial process is being built, what phrases are most common, what terms are used. A sample can be provided in the form of text, video.

On the basis of the deductive method, techniques such as role plays, discussions, forums, symposiums appeared. They are all built on the basis of conversation, learning dialogical speech, develop the ability to argue, defend their opinions, think reasonably and coherently express their thoughts.

The inductive method assumes the training of dialogical speech "from downwards to upwards". That is, first, lexical and grammatical units are studied, and only then dialogue is Methods of this method include "Thick and tonic questions", "Six hats", techniques that teach the structure of speech, drawing up a plan of speeches [10].

The formation of monologic speech and the ability to conduct a dialogue is a key task of technology for the development of critical thinking. All the techniques and strategies in this technology are somehow built on discussion, on the ability to communicate and argue coherently, giving arguments and evidence. They are designed to develop critical thinking. And most importantly - they teach coherent, logically built and reasoned speech.

In conclusion, it can be noted that the training of monologic and dialogical speech should be conducted at all levels of education. It happens that teachers in high school do not pay due attention to this issue, believing that a teenager of 14-16 years old can already speak coherently. But in addition to logical presentation, the school should teach the imagery of thinking, critical judgments, the ability to conduct discussions and disputes. Therefore, using certain techniques, suggesting monologues and dialogues, it is desirable to constantly focus on the requirements for oral speech.

References:

1. Ahmanova Dictionary of Linguistic Terms. 2nded.- Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1969.- 607 p.
2. Yartseva N. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / Ch. Ed. – Moscow: Sov. Encyclopedia, 1990. – 683 p.
3. The collective. Personality. Communication: Dictionary of socio-psychological concepts / [V.S. Ageyev, S.P. Beznosov, V.A. Bogdanov and others); Ed. E.S. Kuzmina, V. E. Semenova. – Lenizdat, 1987
4. Ladyzhenskaya A., Pedagogical speech. Dictionary-reference - Flint (1998) (DJVU) Russian, 5-89349-007-X
5. Yakubinsky P. On the dialogical speech. – Moscow: Nauka, 1986. – 25-326
6. Shcherba L.V. Language system and speech activity. – 1974
7. Stevenson Oxford English online dictionary, Oxford University Press. – – P.840
8. Burbules (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. – New York: Teachers College Press.
9. Kazepides (2012).Education as Dialogue. In T. Besley, & M. P. Peters (Eds.), Interculturalism, Education and Dialogue (pp. 76-86). New York: Peter LangWilkinson, I.A.G., Reninger, K.B., &Soter, A.O. (2010). Developing a professional development tool for assessing quality talk about text. Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, 59. Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.