Shovak O. I. Fundamentals of the Theory of Speech Communication

Belles-lettres style(genre of creative writing);

Each of mentioned here styles can be expressed in two forms: written and oral.

1. 
   scientific style is employed in professional communication to convey some information. It’s most conspicuous feature is the abundance of terms denoting objects, phenomena and processes characteristics of some particular field of science and technique. Also precision clarity logical cohesion.
   
2. 
   Official style is the most conservative one. It uses syntactical constructions and archaic words. Emotiveness is banned out of this style.
   
3. 
   Publicistic style is famous for its explicit pragmatic function of persuasion directed at influencing the reader in accordance with the argumentation of the author.
   
4. 
   Newspaper style - special graphical means are used to attract the readers attention.
   
5. 
   Belles-lettres style - the richest register of communication besides its own language means, other styles can be used besides informative and persuasive functions, belles-lettres style has a unique task to impress the reader are aesthetically.
   

3. 
   Rhetoric and communication
   

The traditional perspective, based upon Aristotle's teachings, assumes that people are, by nature, subject to and capable of persuasion because, unlike other species, we have the capacity to be rational. Of course emotional, psychological, and
physiological factors also affect persuasion, but classical rhetoric insists that such appeals are subsidiary to, or contingent upon, judgments resulting from rational means of persuasion. Rhetoric is viewed as a battle of words, in which speakers attempt to overcome resistance to a course of action, an idea, or a particular judgment by effectively expressing their thoughts in particular situations. Rhetoric traditionally was considered to be public, contextual, and contingent. It was public because it affected the entire community and was typically performed before law courts, legislative assemblies and celebratory gatherings of citizens. Rhetoric was contextual because the meaning of a particular figure of speech or example derived from the particular experiences of a particular audience addressed by a particular speaker at a particular moment. Situations were contingent because the speaker couldn't know ahead of time what was most important or most necessary to say in order to persuade an audience. Unlike scientists who use systematic, empirical, and objective investigation, or artists who wish to create works with timeless quality, rhetors rely on probability and they seek timely and fitting action. All choices, from the arguments to the style of delivery, were assumed to be conscious decisions made to produce and intended effecton listeners. Critics sought an understanding of both a speaker's intentions and the potential effects upon an audience by asking why a speaker chose to talk about certain topics, why the artistic elements of his speech were structured as they were, why certain styles of speech were followed, and so forth. The critic's job was to assess how closely the speaker came to accomplishing what could have been achieved given the circumstances. The typical approach to neo-Aristelian criticism was to use classical rhetorical categories to describe and explain oral persuasive messages. H. Wichelns explains that rhetorical criticism is necessarily analytical. The scheme of a rhetorical study includes the element of the speaker's personality as a conditioning factor; it includes also the public character of the man - not what he was but what he was thought to be. It requires a description of the speaker's audience, and of the leading ideas with which he plied his hearers- his topics, the motives to which he appealed, the nature of proofs he offered. These will reveal his own judgment of human nature in his audiences, and also his judgment on the questions which he discussed. Nor can rhetorical criticism omit the speaker's mode of arrangement and his mode of expression, nor his habit of preparation and his manner of delivery from the platform; though the last two are perhaps less significant. "Style" - in the sense which corresponds to diction and sentence movement must receive attention, but only as one among various means that secure for the speaker ready access to the minds of his auditors. Finally, the effect of the discourse on its immediate hearers is not to be ignored, neither in the testing of witnesses, nor in the record of events. And throughout such a study one must conceive of the public man as influencing the men of his own times by the power of his discourse. Neo-classical critics, following what they believed to be Aristotle's lead, disregarded many manifestations of symbolic meaning that were nonverbal and non-oral as being irrelevant to their concerns, and they further disregarded those oral modes of discourse that did not appear to exhibit patterns of (rational) reasoning. Beginning in 1970, however, the scope of rhetorical criticism was expanded to include nondiscursive subjects, and the next sections describe a few of the more important examples of traditional perspective applied to visual forms of communication.

4. 
   Cross-cultural communication
   

Cross-cultural communication (also frequently referred to as intercultural communication, which is also used in a different sense, though) is a field of study that looks at how people from differing cultural backgrounds communicate, in similar and different ways among themselves, and how they endeavour to communicate across cultures. Cross-cultural communication tries to bring together such relatively unrelated areas as cultural anthropology and established areas of communication. Its core is to establish and understand how people from different cultures communicate with each other. Its charge is to also produce some guidelines with which people from different cultures can better communicate with each other. Cross-cultural communication, as in many scholarly fields, is a combination of many other fields. These fields include anthropology, cultural studies, psychology and communication. The field has also moved both toward the treatment of interethnic relations, and toward the study of communication strategies used by co- cultural populations, i.e., communication strategies used to deal with majority or mainstream populations. The study of languages other than one’s own can not only serve to help us understand what we as human beings have in common, but also assist us in understanding the diversity which underlies not only our languages, but also our ways of constructing and organizing knowledge, and the many different realities in which we all live and interact. Such understanding has profound implications with respect to developing a critical awareness of social relationships. Understanding social relationships and the way other cultures work is the groundwork of successful globalization business efforts. Language socialization can be broadly defined as “an investigation of how language both presupposes and creates new, social relations in cultural context”. It is imperative that the speaker understands the grammar of a language, as well as how elements of language are socially situated in order to reach communicative competence. Human experience is culturally relevant, so elements of language are also culturally relevant. One must carefully consider semiotics and the evaluation of sign systems to compare cross- cultural norms of communication. There are several potential problems that come with language socialization, however. Sometimes people can over-generalize or label cultures with stereotypical and subjective characterizations. Another primaiy concern with documenting alternative cultural norms revolves around the fact that no social actor uses language in ways that perfectly match normative characterizations. A methodology for investigating how an individual uses language and other semiotic activity to create and use new models of conduct and how this varies from the cultural norm should be incorporated into the study of language socialization.