Page 312 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 312
What Do We Know about the World?
er of their arguments invoking either personal motives (i), or personal
experiences (ii), fears and bias (iii) as shown by the following examples:
(i) All the mayors until now showed an increased interest for the trees of our
neighbourhood. This is the reason why you should stop cutting the hazel.
Do you imagine the consequences of your action if it will be repeated and
repeated in the future? That’s why we would propose you not to be the first
mayor who will start this destructive action. (John)
(ii) To my opinion this tree shouldn’t be cut down, because we used to play
there since we were too young as, also, you did when you were a little boy.
(Maria)
(iii) Also, if you permit it, the citizens won’t vote for you. (Theodoris)
2) Second, students allowed the appearance of passion in their
speech, mainly, due to the use of the stylistic element of rhetorical ques-
tions (iv) invoking further socio-economic parameters.
(ii) What is more important for you…oxygen or money? (Helen)
Also, in the third text (Text C) students used as evidence examples
taken either from the mythology (i.e. the powerful relationship between
Ulysses and his dog) or from the friendly “milieu’, while their lexical,
syntactic and functional choices were more accurate.
5.2. Quantitative Analysis
The basic criteria of students’ pre- (Text A) and post-tests (Text B
and C) quantitative analysis with the SPSS (statistical package for the
social sciences) were:
a) The number of all the written arguments of each text. The argu-
mentative unit consisted of one or more sentences which guaran-
teed the basic structure of the argument (Caccamise, 1987; Kel-
logg, 1990).
b) The number of arguments based on the topics of: (i) cause and ef-
fect, (ii) antithesis, (iii) antecedent and consequent (expressed by
conditional conjunctions), (iv) similarity and v) difference of degree.
c) The number of stylistic elements. More specifically, a rating scale
from 0-2 was created. The existence of (i) metaphors (0–1) and of b)
rhetorical questions (0–1) was marked.
d) Text length: counting the words of a text provided a useful analyti-
cal device.
As an alternative test for the one-way repeated measures ANOVA,
the Friedman analysis of variance by ranks was used because of the sam-
ple size of our research (23 students). The Friedman test consisted of a
non-parametrical test which detected differences across multiple test at-
er of their arguments invoking either personal motives (i), or personal
experiences (ii), fears and bias (iii) as shown by the following examples:
(i) All the mayors until now showed an increased interest for the trees of our
neighbourhood. This is the reason why you should stop cutting the hazel.
Do you imagine the consequences of your action if it will be repeated and
repeated in the future? That’s why we would propose you not to be the first
mayor who will start this destructive action. (John)
(ii) To my opinion this tree shouldn’t be cut down, because we used to play
there since we were too young as, also, you did when you were a little boy.
(Maria)
(iii) Also, if you permit it, the citizens won’t vote for you. (Theodoris)
2) Second, students allowed the appearance of passion in their
speech, mainly, due to the use of the stylistic element of rhetorical ques-
tions (iv) invoking further socio-economic parameters.
(ii) What is more important for you…oxygen or money? (Helen)
Also, in the third text (Text C) students used as evidence examples
taken either from the mythology (i.e. the powerful relationship between
Ulysses and his dog) or from the friendly “milieu’, while their lexical,
syntactic and functional choices were more accurate.
5.2. Quantitative Analysis
The basic criteria of students’ pre- (Text A) and post-tests (Text B
and C) quantitative analysis with the SPSS (statistical package for the
social sciences) were:
a) The number of all the written arguments of each text. The argu-
mentative unit consisted of one or more sentences which guaran-
teed the basic structure of the argument (Caccamise, 1987; Kel-
logg, 1990).
b) The number of arguments based on the topics of: (i) cause and ef-
fect, (ii) antithesis, (iii) antecedent and consequent (expressed by
conditional conjunctions), (iv) similarity and v) difference of degree.
c) The number of stylistic elements. More specifically, a rating scale
from 0-2 was created. The existence of (i) metaphors (0–1) and of b)
rhetorical questions (0–1) was marked.
d) Text length: counting the words of a text provided a useful analyti-
cal device.
As an alternative test for the one-way repeated measures ANOVA,
the Friedman analysis of variance by ranks was used because of the sam-
ple size of our research (23 students). The Friedman test consisted of a
non-parametrical test which detected differences across multiple test at-
