The problem of teaching secondary school students argumentative academic speech in English

Goriainova Ol'ga Postgraduate student, Department of foreign languages, Saint Petersburg State University 199034, Russia, Leningrad region, Saint Petersburg, Universitetskaya Embankment str., 13, of. B zolya999@mail.ru

Introduction

Since the issue of education is currently being considered in the context of a continuous process, it seems to us that the goal of modern school education is not just to acquire knowledge, but to a large extent to form skills and key abilities that should prepare graduates to enter the subsequent academic discourse of higher education. These include the ability to create a coherent oral and written statement; formulate, logically and consistently express their thoughts; present arguments and counterarguments; draw conclusions and back them up with examples ^{[1, p. 5]}, that is, the ability to reason and convince, in other words, high school students should have a speech containing the prerequisites academic speech.

Despite the obvious interest in the problem of teaching reasoned oral statements in the academic discourse of higher education and some attempts by researchers in the field of developing argumentation skills in secondary school through critical thinking ^[2], through a system of speech exercises ^[3], the methodology of teaching secondary school students to produce oral foreign language statements of a reasoned nature is clearly insufficiently developed, and the level of the formation of argumentative skills and abilities remains low.

This is confirmed in some studies, in particular, the data presented in the article by A. A. Glavan and D. V. Gram about the experience of practical application of technology for the development of critical thinking among students of non-linguistic areas in the process of learning a foreign language. According to the results of the primary diagnosis of 2nd year students, 60% of students have difficulty arguing their position in a foreign language. ^[4]

In this regard, there is a need to teach high school students oral forms of communication in English, in a situation as close as possible to situations of real academic interaction, which implies the ability to express their opinions and attitudes in detailed reasoned oral statements. The relevance of the issue of teaching argumentative academic speech to secondary school students was determined by the purpose of the work – to consider the degree of development of the methodology of teaching argumentative speech at the middle and senior levels of English language teaching and to propose a technology for teaching oral argumentative speech, as well as to develop a system of exercises aimed at step-by-step formation of skills and abilities to generate oral argumentative foreign language utterance in accordance with its logical structure, taking into account the structural and functional features of the argumentative process and its communicative nature.

The theoretical basis of the research was works on the theory of argumentation (A. P. Alekseev, G. A. Brutyan, E. N. Lisanyuk, Toulmin S.), works on linguistic aspects of the theory of argumentation (T. I. Ladyzhenskaya, M. A. Kovalchuk, O. M. Korchazhkina), works considering argumentative discourse in a communicative aspect (A. I. Migunov, D. V. Zaitsev).

Materials and methods

The materials of our research were assignments in textbooks of the basic level of English in grades 10 and 11 Spotlight for secondary schools edited by O. V. Afanasyeva, D. Dooley, I.V. Mikheeva, etc., as well as schools with in-depth study of the English language in grades 8-11 edited by O.V. Afanasyeva and I.V. Mikheeva, in which there is a focus on the production of an oral statement on the part of the student.

To organize a comparative analysis, classifications of language functions (K. Buhler, K. Popper, L. A. Kiselyova,) and a typology of forms of monological speech in the functional and semantic aspect, developed by O. A. Nechaeva, are used. We will conditionally divide the tasks into informative, evaluative and argumentative ones. Let's analyze the exercises on the quantitative content of argumentative tasks and identify the attitudes with the greatest argumentative orientation.

Tasks with the following formulations were assigned to the speech settings of tasks that are informative in nature: answer the questions; say what/when/where/who; what do you know about; speak about; share information about; report about; narrate; make up sentences/a story/a dialogue; use encyclopedias or Internet resources and prepare/give a talk on; give/introduce examples; expand on the following; how can you account for it; present your findings.

In the typology of O. A. Nechaeva's monologue speech ^[5], these tasks correspond to the description and narration. Since a number of authors expand the list of functional and semantic types, highlighting the definition and explanation as separate functional and semantic types ^[6], and also introduce a characteristic as a type of description and a message as a narrative variant ^{[7, p. 160]}, all of the above tasks were assigned to one group of informative type.

Despite the variety of presented functional and semantic types assigned to this group, the above-mentioned speech-thinking attitudes orient students to search for information and its representation and are carried out to a greater extent at the level of concepts and judgments. In such tasks of an informative nature, an informative function is realized, which in the doctrine of the three functions of K. Buhler's language, and later expanded by K. Popper hierarchy, including: 1) expressive 2) signaling, 3) descriptive and 4)argumentative, is called descriptive. ^{[8, p. 490]}. It should be noted that the informative (descriptive) function, along with the argumentative one, are attributed by K. Popper to higher functions that cannot exist without lower ones, namely, signaling, or stimulating, and expressive, or expressive, which will be discussed below.

In our opinion, tasks for the development of monological speech, including the assessment of information and the expression of one's own opinion in relation to it, can be attributed to more complex from the point of view of mental operations. In such tasks, the evaluation function is embodied. L. A. Kiselyova points out this function in her works ^[9], when using linguistic means there is an impact on the psyche and behavior of the addressee. Kiselyova combines an evaluative function with an emotionally evaluative, expressive, aesthetic, motivational and contact function into a pragmatic (expressive) function and contrasts it with an intellectually informative one. At the same time, both intellectual-informative and pragmatic (expressive) functions are varieties of the communicative function.

Tasks of the evaluation type include: what are/enumerate/think of advantages/disadvantages; agree/disagree; compare; complain; give advice; recommend; make a suggestion; comment on; give your opinion/point of view.

Despite the fact that this group includes tasks containing elements of comparison, comparison, recommendations, suggestions, advice, as well as expression of one's own opinion, which may contain elements of reasoning, in our opinion, such oral statements are not truly argumentative, and most often the statements generated by them remain at the level of evaluative, since, firstly, they do not set the task for students to explicate the three basic elements of argumentation, and accordingly do not assume knowledge about the argumentative structure, the ability to determine the type of logical connection between an argument and arguments, establish the truth of the statements they make, prove the position put forward, find cause and effect, which, according to T. I. Ladyzhenskaya, "characterizes the formation of students elements of scientific style (in its oral form)" ^{[10, p. 72]}, which is gaining special importance in the field of academic discourse of higher education, and secondly, which in our opinion is more important in terms of communication, the examples of evaluative tasks do not develop the ability to identify stronger/weaker arguments and evaluate their own statements from the point of view of the power of persuasion, that is, achieving the purpose of one's statement.

In confirmation of the above, let us turn to the logical side of the theory of argumentation. The structure of the argumentation includes a thesis (T) – a judgment, the truth of which must be proved; arguments (a1 a2 , ..., ap) – the true initial theoretical and factual provisions with which the thesis is justified; demonstration (form of proof) – the logical connection between arguments and thesis (the process of deducing a thesis from arguments). A demonstration can be expressed in the form of a conclusion, but more often a chain of conclusions. According to Migunov, "a statement becomes an argument only by demonstrating its specific place in reasoning, only by demonstrating its certain logical connection with the proclaimed logical consequence." ^{[11, p.36]} In other words, speech acquires its certainty as argumentative due to a more complex argumentative structure, an example is the well-known model of argumentation proposed by S. Tulmin ^[19]. Informative and evaluative tasks have completely different structural and functional characteristics.

Let's list examples of speech-thinking attitudes from the analyzed textbooks that contain a direct indication of the use of argumentation and thus have the greatest argumentative orientation, which will allow us to proceed to the justification of the second point. Argumentative tasks include: explain your choice/position; why/why not and combinations with verbs explain/say why/why not; give/work out/think of/consider/single out arguments for/against; what are the reasons; write/give/think of reasons; prove that; support the point/the answer; convince /persuade/try to be/sound convincing.

In the functional and semantic aspect, such tasks correspond to reasoning as a type of monologue speech. It is necessary to draw a line between the terms "argumentation" and "reasoning" in terms of their structural and functional features. As we saw earlier, reasoning is a mental activity in which one passes from one statement or premise to another, or a conclusion, this transition can be recorded in different ways, for example, in linguistic form through linguistic markers such as "therefore", "because", etc. or with the help of some formal theory. ^{[12, p.49]} Reasoning is one of the forms of such activity, but not the only one, and its other forms include the search for information, its evaluation, solving practical problems, etc. ^{[13, p.14]} Argumentation differs from reasoning in that it is an intellectual an activity involving reasoning and persuasion. According to E. N. Lisanyuk, persuasion is a purposeful process or set of procedures, the purpose of which is a qualitative change in the body of knowledge, opinions, values, intentions, etc. of an agent, occurring under the influence of the agent himself, as well as factors external to him. ^{[12, p.58]}

We find a similar approach in D. V. Zaitsev, who considers argumentation as a communicative phenomenon, and, taking into account the specifics of reasoning used in the processes of justification and criticism, interprets it as a symbolic activity aimed at convincing the subject with the help of special reasoning. ^{[14, p.7]} Highlighting the problem of the criterion for evaluating reasoning as the most important for building a theory D. V. Zaitsev speaks about the effectiveness of reasoning as a characteristic related more to the desired change in the position of the addressee of argumentation than to the correctness of argumentative reasoning. Raising the question of the source of the persuasive power of argumentative reasoning, he comes to the conclusion that the persuasiveness of reasoning essentially depends on the scheme according to which justification or criticism is conducted. [ibid., p. 6] However, unlike logical reasoning, in which the transfer of acceptability from premises to conclusion is based only on formal characteristics, in argumentative schemes this connection is not formal, but pragmatic.

Many researchers trace a specific pragmatic, or influencing, orientation of argumentative speech, which consists in the fact that the speaker/argumentator pursues certain goals, namely, to make the truth available to the recipient, to prove, to evoke some emotions (to excite, interest, calm), to induce the recipient to perform some specific action or refrain from such kind actions. ^{[15, pp.19-21]} Knowledge of the goals of argumentation becomes especially important at the stage when students have to solve the tasks assigned to them in the process of communication, which will be mentioned in the part devoted to the development of argumentative skills.

A separate item should be highlighted the task "Discuss / Arrange a discussion on", which are often the final tasks on topics, but sometimes occur in the middle of units. It is difficult to imagine a discussion in its true sense without the ability to formulate reasons, come to conclusions, prove, convince and persuade. A detailed technology for conducting various forms of group discussions, taking into account the principles of communication psychology, is proposed by M. A. Kovalchuk in the methodological guide on the use of group discussions in teaching foreign languages. ^[16] However, if the skills and abilities of argumentative speech are not formed, the effectiveness of such forms of learning is questioned.

Results and discussion

So, according to the results of the analysis, the number of informative tasks amounted to 48% of the total number of exercises aimed at developing speaking skills, 36% - tasks of an evaluative nature. Tasks containing argumentative speech attitudes averaged 16%, ranging from max 21% in the textbook for the XI grade by O. V. Afanasiev, I. V. Mikheev and up to min 11% in the textbook Spotlight X, O.V. Afanasiev, D. Dooley, I.V. Mikheeva, etc.

As can be seen from the results of the analysis, the percentage of tasks for the development of argumentative speech is significantly lower than the number of tasks for the development of informative speech. Therefore, firstly, it confirms the fact, noted by many researchers, about the predominance of informative speech in students, and, secondly, it indicates that argumentative speech, as the closest to academic, remains unformed or insufficiently formed among high school graduates due to insufficient development of methods of teaching argumentative skills and skills.

It is obvious that the training of argumentative speech should be based on the formed skills of using informative and evaluative speech. According to K. Popper, the argumentative function of language arises from an informative (descriptive) function and serves as a source of enrichment and development of the latter. Distinguishing four functions of language, he attributes 1) expressive and 2) signaling, to the lowest linguistic functions; and 3) informative (or descriptive) and 4)argumentative (or critical), to higher linguistic functions. ^{[8, p. 490]} O. M. Korzhachkina writes in her work about the participation of the argumentative function of language in the formation of one of the highest linguistic characteristics of a mature personality and the formation of a number of meta-subject competencies of a linguistic personality ^{[17, p.9]}, which once again indicates the need to master argumentative speech at the stage of secondary education and its development in the subsequent academic discourse of higher education.

Despite the fact that teaching argumentative speech is impossible without teaching informative speech and its types such as narration, description, explanation, the development of which will be facilitated by a significant number of informative tasks, nevertheless, the formation and development of argumentative skills and abilities will require special training. Let's trace the logic of argumentative speech development.

Formation of argumentative skills

At the heart of any speech skill are certain skills, that is, actions that a person performs automatically, without thinking about how and what he does. ^{[18, p. 143]}

At the stage of formation of argumentative skills, familiarization with the basic components of argumentation by the premise(s) and conclusion takes place, the development of the ability to recognize them in the text presented in written or oral form; familiarization with the lexical means of entering premises and conclusions and linguistic means of expressing the logical connection between them; presentation of deductive and inductive forms of logical conclusion and their development as at the level of individual examples, and at the level of the text; familiarization with logical errors.

Exercises aimed at the formation of argumentative skills. For example:

a) language exercises

• mark in a number of words and expressions those that can be used to enter the parcel/parcels and conclude;
  Example: so, because, therefore, that’s why, as, since, thus, for these reasons, consequently, from which it follows that, first of all, hence, as a result, it follows that;
• name the words that can be used to indicate the premises and conclusion;
• combine the following parts of the argument using the means of communication between the premises and the conclusion.

b) conditional speech exercises

• read the text, determine the number of arguments given, specify the conclusion and premises included in them;
• reconstruct the parts of the argument (premises and conclusion) implicated in this statement;
  Example: Cogito ergo sum/ I think therefore I am. René Descartes.
• determine the form of logical conclusion (deductive/inductive) between the premises and the conclusion
  Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
• listen/read the text and find arguments in support of the following statement/ refuting the following statement;
  Example: Men and women are equal today.
• select the arguments in which the rules of reasoning are violated and determine the type of logical error;
  Example: I think so, because my father says that boys are much more clever than girls and so they should study separately.

Development of argumentative skills

At the stage of development of argumentative skills, tasks with a greater degree of speech freedom are needed. For example:

a) conditional speech exercises

• make lists of the pros and cons of this statement;
  Example: Boys and girls should not study together
• ask your partner if you understand him exactly;
  Example: Am I right in understanding you that…?
• come up with counterarguments for the following statements;
  Example: A. If students could choose their teachers it would be easier for students to study – B. You are not quite right because…
• read the following arguments, identify the problem and the proposed solution;
  Example: 1. Discipline at school will be much better. 2.Boys will respect girls more. 3.Girls will feel much safer at school.
• compare the arguments given according to the degree of persuasiveness, which of them seem to you the most/least convincing in support of the following statement;
  Example:Rap is to blame for teen violence. a) Rap is music of violence and crime as rappers sing of these things. b) Teens want to look like rap idols and behave like them. And some rappers have spent some time in prison. c) Rap music degrades women calling them bad names. Rap songs affect teens’ attitude towards women. d) Rap sons affect teens’ attitude towards money making them believe that money is the most important thing in the world.
• work with your partner and try to find counterarguments to the arguments presented in the previous exercise;
  Example: A. Rap is music of violence and crime as rappers sing of these things. – B. You are not quite right because…

Development of argumentative skills

According to Popova, who in her work considered the process of forming reasoned skills, "teaching reasoned utterance based on super-phrasal unity is difficult at the stage of speech skill development"^[3], that is, the ability to apply it in real communication, in which speech is used to influence people's views and beliefs, change them attitude to certain facts and phenomena of reality, to incline them to actions and deeds.^{[10, c.1]} Accordingly, at the stage of development of argumentative utterance skills, speech exercises should be used, the distinguishing features of which are the presence of a specific speech task, namely, to prove, confirm / justify, assure / convince, so that students realize for what purpose they create an oral statement ..

As an example, let's give one of the possible job options in working with a partner "A politician who is against the single-sex system of education and a teacher who is for this idea sit together to discuss the proposition. Affirmative side begins the discussion. A politician who opposes the separation of boys and girls in school, and a teacher who is a supporter of this idea, sit down together to discuss this statement."

It should also be noted that at the stage of argumentative speech development, it is necessary to set speech-thinking tasks for students, the solution of which requires maximum argumentativeness, which will entail the development of argumentative abilities necessary to generate argumentative statements and the development of skills and abilities of argumentative academic speech.

One of the most successful from this point of view was the following assignment in the textbook on English for grades IX edited by O. V. Afanasyeva and I. V. Mikheeva "Prepare an appeal to the nations of the world to stop and ban all wars. Prepare an appeal to the nations of the world to stop and ban all wars." Despite the absence of such formulations in the task as prove, confirm, justify, give arguments, the speech-thinking task set for the student will require awareness of the purpose of his statement and its correct formulation in the thesis statement, explication of the causal relationship between the thesis and arguments, as well as further choice of strategy and tactics of speaking.

Tasks of this open type with detailed answers are presented in the control measuring materials (CMM) of the exam work of the Unified State Exam in English.^[19] In addition to the fact that they test productive skills and abilities that help identify graduates and applicants who have the highest level of language training and are able to study in higher educational institutions, these tasks test the formation of complex cognitive and communicative skills, which include argumentative skills and abilities.

Conclusion

To further enter the sphere of academic discourse, students need to master such language functions as informative, descriptive, evaluative, and especially argumentative, embodied in argumentative speech as the form closest to academic speech. The lack of development of the methodology of teaching oral argumentative speech necessitates: 1) special step-by-step formation of argumentative skills and abilities without which it is impossible to create monological statements of an argumentative nature, 2) the use of linguistic, conditional speech and speech exercises necessary for students to realize the purpose of argumentation, mastering the logical structure of argumentation and lexical means of communication, 3) taking into account the structural and functional features of argumentation when creating argumentative tasks.

The data obtained as a result of the analysis can be used in teaching foreign languages, in particular teaching oral monologue in English. Theoretical provisions may have methodological significance in the development of educational and methodological literature for teaching oral argumentative speech to secondary school students.