Page 204 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 204
With the exception of a small group of experts, whose rhetoric and ar-
gumentation conceptualisations more or less correspond with international-
ly recognised theoretical directions, most researchers and theoreticians, from
the field of social sciences and humanities in Slovenia, view rhetoric and argu-
mentation as less important contents that are of no equal match in compar-
ison with ‘serious’ disciplines, such as philosophy, linguistics, literary sciences,
communicology etc. Another anything-but-rare occurrence is rhetoric being
perceived in a curtailed form, either in the spirit of the 19th century as a ‘cata-
logue of rhetoric figures’ (e.g. Smolej and Hriberšek, 2005), as a skill of sophis-
ticated and accurate speaking (e.g. Podbevšek, 1994) or as a bare manipulative
technique, the main and sole aim of which (in contrast to argumentation) is
misleading, or even lying and deceiving (e.g. Vezjak, 2009).9 When conceptions
developed by Slovenian theoreticians in the sense of independent theoretical
disciplines are found, there is another characteristic that can be noticed in re-
lation to this. While there are few individuals who view rhetoric and argumen-
tation in the widest sense as a network of concepts and notions that enable an
analysis and synthesis of public discourse (e.g. Žagar Ž., 2006), the majority of
204 others recognise rhetoric solely as something that needs to be differentiated
from argumentation at a value level. Although nowadays such a concept has
elsewhere almost completely been abolished, it is still relatively deeply-root-
ed in Slovenia.10 In the context of public discourse, argumentation (or what it
is usually understood to be) is in Slovenia considered a legitimate practice, de-
fined by two criteria: rationality and the truth. On the other hand, rhetoric is
condemned as an illegitimate, irrational form of public activity that is based on
untruth and is misleading. In defence of such differentiations, definitions such
as ‘rhetoric is weak argumentation’ or ‘rhetoric is a decorative appendage of ar-
gumentation’ can commonly be found. As a conceptually inferior discipline,
rhetoric is thus often either almost completely missing from Slovenian argu-
mentative analyses, or is recognised as a ‘lesser’ discourse element.
Such circumstances present the challenge of how to maintain a concep-
tual dichotomy between rhetoric and argumentation, and simultaneously de-
fine both of these disciplines in a way that will not result in getting caught in
gumentation at Slovenian universities. His role in teaching rhetoric in lower secondary school will
be described in more detail later.
9 In relation to this, some Slovenian translations of ancient (and other) works from the field of rhetoric
must not be overlooked. The majority of a rather modest (yet rising) number of translations consist
of classical works; however, as their primary aim is not the theoretical presentation of rhetoric and
argumentation concepts, such works usually contain only a historical outline or factual and con-
tent-related explanations in the form of appendices (prefaces, footnotes, comments).
10 For instance, a well-known pragma-dialectical theory needs to be mentioned at this point; this
theory was, at the beginning, extremely unfavourably disposed to the understanding of rhetoric,
whereas in most recent conceptualisations it integrates rhetorical principles into the concept of so-
called strategic manoeuvring in an equal way to dialectic elements. Cf. van Eemeren and Grooten-
dorst (2004).
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
gumentation conceptualisations more or less correspond with international-
ly recognised theoretical directions, most researchers and theoreticians, from
the field of social sciences and humanities in Slovenia, view rhetoric and argu-
mentation as less important contents that are of no equal match in compar-
ison with ‘serious’ disciplines, such as philosophy, linguistics, literary sciences,
communicology etc. Another anything-but-rare occurrence is rhetoric being
perceived in a curtailed form, either in the spirit of the 19th century as a ‘cata-
logue of rhetoric figures’ (e.g. Smolej and Hriberšek, 2005), as a skill of sophis-
ticated and accurate speaking (e.g. Podbevšek, 1994) or as a bare manipulative
technique, the main and sole aim of which (in contrast to argumentation) is
misleading, or even lying and deceiving (e.g. Vezjak, 2009).9 When conceptions
developed by Slovenian theoreticians in the sense of independent theoretical
disciplines are found, there is another characteristic that can be noticed in re-
lation to this. While there are few individuals who view rhetoric and argumen-
tation in the widest sense as a network of concepts and notions that enable an
analysis and synthesis of public discourse (e.g. Žagar Ž., 2006), the majority of
204 others recognise rhetoric solely as something that needs to be differentiated
from argumentation at a value level. Although nowadays such a concept has
elsewhere almost completely been abolished, it is still relatively deeply-root-
ed in Slovenia.10 In the context of public discourse, argumentation (or what it
is usually understood to be) is in Slovenia considered a legitimate practice, de-
fined by two criteria: rationality and the truth. On the other hand, rhetoric is
condemned as an illegitimate, irrational form of public activity that is based on
untruth and is misleading. In defence of such differentiations, definitions such
as ‘rhetoric is weak argumentation’ or ‘rhetoric is a decorative appendage of ar-
gumentation’ can commonly be found. As a conceptually inferior discipline,
rhetoric is thus often either almost completely missing from Slovenian argu-
mentative analyses, or is recognised as a ‘lesser’ discourse element.
Such circumstances present the challenge of how to maintain a concep-
tual dichotomy between rhetoric and argumentation, and simultaneously de-
fine both of these disciplines in a way that will not result in getting caught in
gumentation at Slovenian universities. His role in teaching rhetoric in lower secondary school will
be described in more detail later.
9 In relation to this, some Slovenian translations of ancient (and other) works from the field of rhetoric
must not be overlooked. The majority of a rather modest (yet rising) number of translations consist
of classical works; however, as their primary aim is not the theoretical presentation of rhetoric and
argumentation concepts, such works usually contain only a historical outline or factual and con-
tent-related explanations in the form of appendices (prefaces, footnotes, comments).
10 For instance, a well-known pragma-dialectical theory needs to be mentioned at this point; this
theory was, at the beginning, extremely unfavourably disposed to the understanding of rhetoric,
whereas in most recent conceptualisations it integrates rhetorical principles into the concept of so-
called strategic manoeuvring in an equal way to dialectic elements. Cf. van Eemeren and Grooten-
dorst (2004).
student (under)achievement: perspectives, approaches, challenges
