INTEGRATION OF DIALOGIC AND MONOLOGIC SPEECH IN TEACHING ARGUMENTATION IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSES

The Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Network (HLSTN) 142 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18054465 INTEGRATION OF DIALOGIC AND MONOLOGIC SPEECH IN TEACHING ARGUMENTATION IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSES 1 Aziza I. Buribaeva Gulistan State University [email protected] Abstract. The article examines the theoretical and methodological foundations for developing argumentative oral speech among students in grades 8–9 in English language classes. Particular emphasis is placed on the integration of dialogic and monologic forms of speech through the systematic use of verbal and visual scaffolding. The study substantiates the pedagogical value of combining dialogic interaction with monologic production in order to foster students’ argumentative competence. Special attention is given to argument construction models, specifically Toulmin’s model and the TASK model, which contribute to the development of logical–discursive skills, analytical and synthetic thinking, and evidence-based reasoning in communication. Based on the analyzed approaches, a methodological model for teaching argumentative speech is proposed, taking into account learners’ cognitive characteristics and patterns of speech development. Keywords: argumentative oral speech, English language teaching, dialogic and monologic speech, Toulmin’s model, TASK model, verbal and visual scaffolding, argumentation, learners’ cognitive characteristics, teaching methodology, communicative competence. Introduction. Contemporary education is increasingly oriented toward the formation of individuals capable of independent thinking, reasoned expression of opinions, and constructive interaction in communication. In this context, the development of argumentative oral speech becomes a key component of learners’ communicative competence. Argumentative speech presupposes not only mastery of lexical and grammatical resources but also the ability to structure utterances logically, coherently, and persuasively, as well as to articulate and defend one’s viewpoint. 1 Cite as: Buribaeva, A. I. (2025). Integration of Dialogic and Monologic Speech in Teaching Argumentation in English Language Classes. The Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Network, 12, pp. 142-150. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18054465 BURIBAEVA Vol. 12, 2025 143 Within the methodology of foreign language teaching, the problem of forming argumentative speech among students in grades 8–9 is particularly relevant due to the age-specific cognitive characteristics of this learner group. At this stage of development, learners demonstrate rapid growth in logical thinking, reflection, and analytical abilities, which creates favorable conditions for mastering argumentation skills. However, classroom practice shows that students often experience difficulties in producing logically structured utterances in English. These difficulties are caused not only by limited vocabulary and insufficient grammatical competence but also by an underdeveloped repertoire of argumentative strategies. Approaches to Teaching Argumentation. In teaching argumentative speech, both deductive and inductive approaches are commonly employed, referred to respectively as the top-down and bottom-up approaches. The top-down approach is based on learners’ exposure to complete, well-structured models of argumentative discourse, such as dialogues, opinion texts, or short argumentative passages. Through analysis and guided reflection, students identify the functional components of argumentation, including claims, reasons, evidence, and conclusions. This approach facilitates learners’ awareness of discourse organization and supports the development of macro-structural competence in argumentative speech. By contrast, the bottom-up approach focuses on the gradual accumulation of linguistic and rhetorical resources. Learners are first introduced to individual lexical items, grammatical structures, and functional phrases used for expressing opinions, agreement, disagreement, justification, and evaluation. These elements are then progressively combined into larger discourse units, ultimately resulting in coherent dialogic or monologic argumentative texts. The inductive nature of this approach makes it particularly effective for supporting learners with limited linguistic proficiency, as it reduces cognitive overload and allows for controlled practice at the micro-level of speech production. An alternative and highly effective option is the rhetorical approach, which emphasizes the teaching of rhetorical strategies for presenting ideas and persuading an interlocutor or audience (Billig, 1996; Kulikova, 2019). Within this framework, argumentation is viewed not merely The Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Network (HLSTN) 144 as a logical procedure but as a communicative and social act aimed at influencing others’ beliefs, attitudes, or actions. Learners are taught how to adapt their arguments to the communicative context, the interlocutor’s position, and the intended pragmatic effect. As a result, argumentative speech becomes more audience-oriented, flexible, and communicatively meaningful. The rhetorical approach has proven productive in developing both dialogic and monologic forms of argumentative speech. In dialogic interaction, learners acquire strategies for initiating arguments, responding to counterarguments, negotiating meaning, and reaching consensus. In monologic speech, rhetorical training helps learners structure extended utterances, maintain coherence, and enhance persuasive impact through the use of evaluative language, examples, and generalizations. Consequently, learners’ utterances become more precise, persuasive, and communicatively effective. Within this pedagogical framework, instruction may be organized around a given dialogic text that contains explicit or implicit argumentative moves. After working with the text, learners are guided to identify speech acts of argumentation, such as stating a claim, providing justification, expressing disagreement, or drawing a conclusion. This analytical stage raises learners’ metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness of argumentative discourse and prepares them for independent production. Alternatively, learners may be provided with functional language patterns and rhetorical formulas for expressing opinions and arguments (e.g., I believe that…, The main reason is…, From my point of view…, However, one could argue that…). These patterns serve as verbal scaffolding and are subsequently used as building blocks for constructing dialogues or short monologic statements. Gradually, as learners gain confidence and fluency, external support is reduced, allowing for more autonomous and creative use of argumentative strategies. Importantly, the most effective instructional practice does not rely on a single approach but rather integrates deductive, inductive, and rhetorical perspectives. Such integration ensures balanced development of linguistic accuracy, logical coherence, and communicative BURIBAEVA Vol. 12, 2025 145 effectiveness. In this sense, the combined use of top-down and bottom-up procedures within a rhetorical framework creates optimal conditions for the systematic formation of argumentative competence in foreign language learners. Illustrative Example of Dialogic Argumentation. Consider the following dialogue between two brothers: A: You never tidy up your room. There are things lying around everywhere. B: You’re joking! That wasn’t me. A: I’m not going to figure out who did it. Clean up the room quickly. B: You’ve got to be kidding! I don’t have any time because I’m going to school. A: I won’t let you go until you tidy it up. B: Well, if that’s what you want, I’ll clean the room. A: I think we’ve reached an agreement. You should keep in mind that cleanliness is the key to health. Students are asked to identify utterances that perform the following functions: ▪ statement and argument; ▪ reaction and counterargument; ▪ persuasion; ▪ reaction and counterargument; ▪ persuasion and prohibition; ▪ concession, agreement, and advice in the form of a conclusion. This dialogue demonstrates that persuasion is achieved through arguments structured as logical procedures, such as deduction, induction, analogy, and inference. In the example above, deductive reasoning is employed through a syllogistic structure, where the general premise “Cleanliness is the key to health” functions as the basis for influencing the interlocutor’s behavior. This confirms that argumentation is inherently goal-oriented and aimed at producing a predictable communicative effect—in this case, motivating the listener to tidy the room. Through such tasks, learners acquire linguistic means for expressing arguments and counterarguments while comparing their functional roles in communication. Bottom-Up Approach and the Role of Scaffolding. In contrast, the bottom-up approach focuses on mastering speech patterns and subsequently combining The Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Network (HLSTN) 146 them into coherent texts, particularly monologic ones (Kazakova, 2021). This approach is especially effective at the initial stage of teaching elements of argumentation, such as expressing likes and dislikes, where strict evidential support is not yet required. Nevertheless, for students in grades 8–9, whose linguistic and cognitive resources are already relatively developed, this approach remains valuable when integrated with more complex argumentative tasks. Gradual progression from simple to complex forms of argumentation allows learners to accumulate a sufficient repertoire of argumentative language input. For meaningful participation in communication, learners need not only linguistic formulas but also substantive content— information or topics suitable for discussion. Integration of Dialogic and Monologic Speech. Effective teaching of both dialogic and monologic argumentative speech requires the systematic use of verbal and visual scaffolding. Traditionally, foreign language instruction prioritizes dialogic speech before introducing monologic speech as a more complex form. For example, learners may first respond to teacher questions based on a picture and then produce a monologic description with elements of argumentation. Figure 1. Distribution of Learning outcomes in Argumentative Speech Development Some researchers argue that monologic speech in classroom settings primarily occurs between teacher and student rather than among students themselves (Peresada et al., 2019). While this observation is valid, it highlights the BURIBAEVA Vol. 12, 2025 147 need to design tasks that enable learners to interact actively with one another not only dialogically but also monologically. This can be achieved by integrating dialogic and monologic speech through organizational schemes and visual frameworks. Verbal and visual scaffolding performs multiple functions: it supports the content of argumentative speech; ensures its relevance to the communicative context; helps structure arguments logically; and fosters awareness of clarity, precision, and sufficiency of ideas when expressing opinions or addressing problems. Argumentation Models in Instruction. From an operational perspective, several models of argument construction have been proposed. Toulmin’s model offers sixor seven-component structures for organizing arguments, with claims as the central element (Toulmin, 2003; Warren, 2010). This model is particularly useful for developing learners’ awareness of the procedural organization of argumentation. For students in grades 8–9, the following stages are considered pedagogically appropriate: ▪ formulating a claim or thesis; ▪ providing justification, explanation, or commentary; ▪ eliciting agreement or disagreement from the interlocutor; ▪ responding with arguments or counterarguments; ▪ processing feedback and continuing interaction. Another effective framework is the TASK model (Analysis → Thesis → Synthesis → Key), which aims to develop reasoning, analytical skills, and evidence-based argumentation, including appeals to authority (Ungaralieva, 2022). This model aligns well with Toulmin’s framework and is particularly effective in text-based instruction. At the pre-text stage, tasks focus on overcoming linguistic and psychological barriers while analyzing formal and functional features of arguments. The while-text stage emphasizes comprehension and identification of argument structures, while the post-text stage includes tasks such as True/False activities and “For and Against” discussions, leading to synthesis and the formulation of a key conclusion. The Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Network (HLSTN) 148 Figure 2. Effectiveness of Task Types in Developing Argumentative Oral Speech Conclusion. In summary, the proposed methodological model for teaching argumentative oral speech to students in grades 8–9 is based on an integrative approach that combines cognitive patterns of dialogic and monologic speech development, the logical–discursive nature of argumentation, learners’ age-related cognitive abilities, and typical difficulties encountered in foreign language learning. These interrelated factors determine the selection and coordination of teaching approaches, methodological principles, instructional methods, and systems of exercises aimed at the systematic formation of argumentative competence. The study demonstrates that effective instruction in argumentative speech cannot be reduced to the development of linguistic skills alone. Instead, it requires deliberate attention to the cognitive and communicative dimensions of speech production, including reasoning processes, the ability to establish causal relationships, and the capacity to respond appropriately to alternative viewpoints. In this respect, the integration of dialogic and monologic forms of speech is of particular importance, as it enables learners to move from interactive negotiation of meaning to more extended and structured forms of expression. The findings also confirm the pedagogical value of verbal and visual scaffolding in supporting learners’ BURIBAEVA Vol. 12, 2025 149 argumentative performance. Such scaffolding not only facilitates comprehension and speech production but also contributes to the internalization of argumentative structures and rhetorical strategies. Gradual reduction of external support allows learners to develop autonomy and flexibility in constructing arguments across different communicative contexts. Moreover, the proposed model contributes to the development of learners’ overall communicative competence by fostering accuracy, coherence, and persuasiveness in oral speech. As a result, students become better prepared for meaningful participation in both academic discourse and real-life communication, where the ability to express and justify one’s position is increasingly essential. Thus, the methodological model outlined in this study may serve as an effective framework for teaching argumentative oral speech in secondary school foreign language education and offers перспективы for further empirical validation and adaptation to other educational contexts. References 1. Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press. 2. Council of Europe. (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. 3. Hyland, K. (2022). Teaching and researching writing (3rd ed.). Routledge. 4. Kazakova, T. A. (2021). Methodological foundations of developing argumentative speech in secondary school learners [Методические основы формирования аргументированной речи учащихся средней школы]. Issues of Foreign Language Teaching Methodology, 2, 58–65. 5. Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2023). Dialogic argumentation as a pathway to conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 58(1), 1–18. 6. Kulikova, E. G. (2019). Developing argumentative competence within the rhetorical approach [Развитие аргументативной компетенции обучающихся в рамках риторического подхода]. Moscow University Bulletin. Series 19: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 4, 112–119. 7. Liu, Y. (2021). Developing argumentative competence in EFL classrooms. Doctoral dissertation. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.