Page 201 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 201
entation is being denied by the Slovenian ‘official’ definition. Can the rea- 201
sons for this be attributed to the lack of knowledge and understanding by the
authors of the dictionary or must the answer to this be sought in the charac-
teristics of Slovenian society and the ‘Slovenian’ attitude to such social and lin-
guistic phenomena as rhetoric and argumentation? Assuming the competen-
cies and knowledge of the authors who participate in such a large-scale and
socially significant project as the Dictionary of Standard Slovenian Language
are sufficient, the attention of this paper is directed towards the second rea-
son, i.e. circumstances within society. These can be the result of a number of
cultural, historical, political and other factors, whereby the essential role in the
construction of the meaning (notions, ideas, concepts, etc) and language use
in the widest sense of the word is always played by the current systems of
education. Language use, as the result of social construction, permeates the
field of education, where it is commonly an implicit and non-problematised
part of curriculum-based and official knowledge. When the construction of a
meaning by means of the‘public sphere’becomes part of everyday (and there-
with support) knowledge, the notions, ideas, concepts etc. within education-
al discourse are likewise constructed as self-evident and normative.2 Reasons
for this must be sought in a) the distinctive character of the context where-
in this sort of language use takes place (i.e. a highly formalised institutional
context) and, b) in the specific (i.e. educational) nature of the educational dis-
course, which makes it possible for the ideological, currently valid political and
otherwise problematic conceptions to be validated, explained, legitimised
and naturalised.3 With the aim of pointing out any special characteristics of the
Slovenian conception of rhetoric and argumentation, and providing a partial
answer to the aforementioned questions about the issues in relation to dic-
tionary entries, this paper reveals the role of both disciplines within contem-
porary education in Slovenia. In doing so, it devotes special attention to stu-
dent achievement as a significant element in light of social evaluations, as well
as self-evaluation, and shows that rhetoric and argumentation, as special strat-
egies of language use at several levels, remain overlooked or even underrated
factors, whereby they most likely also impact academic achievement.
2 The conception of educational discourse is summarised from Žagar Ž. and Domanjko (2006: 8), who
define the educational process as ‘a special form/impacts of language use in a specific social con-
text, with a specific function and aim’. In light of the discourse, the authors refer to the educational
process as ‘a dynamic social process of co-construction of knowledge and the immediate learning
situation as part of which, and because of which, the process takes place more or less successfully’
(ibid.); the authors understand the learning situation both as a lesson and the school institution in
the widest sense, as well as participants’ roles and relationships between participants, and the var-
ious types of activities taking place within this situation.
3 Problematic conceptions because an ‘objective’ value is attached to them by the institutional
framework and the educational function in advance. Something similar has been demonstrated in
the example of the term‘Europe’in Slovenian textbooks for lower-secondary schools. Cf. Žmavc and
Žagar Ž. (2011).
rhetoric and argumentation as factors in student achievement
sons for this be attributed to the lack of knowledge and understanding by the
authors of the dictionary or must the answer to this be sought in the charac-
teristics of Slovenian society and the ‘Slovenian’ attitude to such social and lin-
guistic phenomena as rhetoric and argumentation? Assuming the competen-
cies and knowledge of the authors who participate in such a large-scale and
socially significant project as the Dictionary of Standard Slovenian Language
are sufficient, the attention of this paper is directed towards the second rea-
son, i.e. circumstances within society. These can be the result of a number of
cultural, historical, political and other factors, whereby the essential role in the
construction of the meaning (notions, ideas, concepts, etc) and language use
in the widest sense of the word is always played by the current systems of
education. Language use, as the result of social construction, permeates the
field of education, where it is commonly an implicit and non-problematised
part of curriculum-based and official knowledge. When the construction of a
meaning by means of the‘public sphere’becomes part of everyday (and there-
with support) knowledge, the notions, ideas, concepts etc. within education-
al discourse are likewise constructed as self-evident and normative.2 Reasons
for this must be sought in a) the distinctive character of the context where-
in this sort of language use takes place (i.e. a highly formalised institutional
context) and, b) in the specific (i.e. educational) nature of the educational dis-
course, which makes it possible for the ideological, currently valid political and
otherwise problematic conceptions to be validated, explained, legitimised
and naturalised.3 With the aim of pointing out any special characteristics of the
Slovenian conception of rhetoric and argumentation, and providing a partial
answer to the aforementioned questions about the issues in relation to dic-
tionary entries, this paper reveals the role of both disciplines within contem-
porary education in Slovenia. In doing so, it devotes special attention to stu-
dent achievement as a significant element in light of social evaluations, as well
as self-evaluation, and shows that rhetoric and argumentation, as special strat-
egies of language use at several levels, remain overlooked or even underrated
factors, whereby they most likely also impact academic achievement.
2 The conception of educational discourse is summarised from Žagar Ž. and Domanjko (2006: 8), who
define the educational process as ‘a special form/impacts of language use in a specific social con-
text, with a specific function and aim’. In light of the discourse, the authors refer to the educational
process as ‘a dynamic social process of co-construction of knowledge and the immediate learning
situation as part of which, and because of which, the process takes place more or less successfully’
(ibid.); the authors understand the learning situation both as a lesson and the school institution in
the widest sense, as well as participants’ roles and relationships between participants, and the var-
ious types of activities taking place within this situation.
3 Problematic conceptions because an ‘objective’ value is attached to them by the institutional
framework and the educational function in advance. Something similar has been demonstrated in
the example of the term‘Europe’in Slovenian textbooks for lower-secondary schools. Cf. Žmavc and
Žagar Ž. (2011).
rhetoric and argumentation as factors in student achievement
