Page 205 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 205
local axiological definition of ‘weak rhetoric’ in ‘good argumentation’. Why 205
even waste time on definitions and substantiating them in a paper that should
really be about the (possible) impact of mastering rhetoric and argumentation
on student achievement? The reason for doing so is the author’s belief that
due to the peculiarity of attitude to rhetoric and argumentation within Slove-
nia, any formal ‘entry’ of both of these disciplines in education will make sense
and be legitimate only when they have been accurately defined, as suitable
conceptualisations are needed for presenting arguments in favour of the sig-
nificance of teaching these two disciplines and to develop didactically suita-
ble learning models.
The conception of rhetoric and argumentation in this paper combines the
traditional Aristotelian perspective on rhetoric, along with some established
contemporary theories of rhetoric and argumentation developed by Perel-
man, Toulmin, Govier and other researchers. A partial basis for the conception
is Tindale’s concept of rhetorical argumentation (Tindale, 2004), where argu-
mentation is viewed as a special part of rhetoric, and not as something that is
in contrast with rhetoric. Rhetoric is thus regarded as a skill of efficient public
persuasion based on the classical rhetorical system. Its basis is provided in the
so-called ‘duties of the orator’ (Lat. officia oratoris) and concepts within individ-
ual duties, such as discovery, invention of arguments11 (Lat. inventio), selection
and arrangement of arguments (Lat. dipositio), the style, articulation of argu-
ments (Lat. elocutio), as well as their memorisation (Lat. memoria) and pres-
entation (Lat. actio). Moreover, argumentation represents a field that is both
within and outside of rhetoric. On the one hand it is defined as part of con-
temporary theoretical directions as a conceptually independent activity/disci-
pline, and it is simultaneously recognised within ‘a rhetorically historical con-
text’, as part of the (rhetorical) concept of three means of persuasion (i.e. as
part of pisteis and the well-known Aristotelian triad ethos–pathos–logos, where
the last principle represents the so-called ‘rational form of persuasion’, and the
first two the ‘irrational’, ‘illogical’ forms).12 From the perspective of contempo-
rary argumentation theories represented by Toulmin (1958/1995), van Eemer-
11 Here, the concept of‘argument’is not understood in the normative sense as a set of specifically con-
structed premises leading to a conclusion, but as a distinctly functional, i.e. in terms of contents and
structure, highly diverse selection of utterances that may, considering the circumstances, suitably
support what one wishes to say.
12 Ethos denotes a discourse construction or a presentation of the speaker’s trustworthy image based
on creating the impression of their good sense, integrity and good intentions; pathos is a collection
of various different kinds of strategies (linguistic and non-linguistic), by means of which the speaker
tries to evoke the listeners’ emotional response (e.g. anger, fear, joy, etc.), which corresponds to
the content/topic of the speech. The expressions rational and irrational are, within the context of
rhetoric and argumentation in terms of their functionality, regarded as perfectly equivalent means
of persuasion, whose differentiation is based on the level of the discourse situation (who is the
audience and what is the speech about?) and presents a collection of various linguistic and non-
linguistic techniques and strategies. For more on the concept of means of persuasion see Žmavc
(2009a, 2009b, 2012).
rhetoric and argumentation as factors in student achievement
even waste time on definitions and substantiating them in a paper that should
really be about the (possible) impact of mastering rhetoric and argumentation
on student achievement? The reason for doing so is the author’s belief that
due to the peculiarity of attitude to rhetoric and argumentation within Slove-
nia, any formal ‘entry’ of both of these disciplines in education will make sense
and be legitimate only when they have been accurately defined, as suitable
conceptualisations are needed for presenting arguments in favour of the sig-
nificance of teaching these two disciplines and to develop didactically suita-
ble learning models.
The conception of rhetoric and argumentation in this paper combines the
traditional Aristotelian perspective on rhetoric, along with some established
contemporary theories of rhetoric and argumentation developed by Perel-
man, Toulmin, Govier and other researchers. A partial basis for the conception
is Tindale’s concept of rhetorical argumentation (Tindale, 2004), where argu-
mentation is viewed as a special part of rhetoric, and not as something that is
in contrast with rhetoric. Rhetoric is thus regarded as a skill of efficient public
persuasion based on the classical rhetorical system. Its basis is provided in the
so-called ‘duties of the orator’ (Lat. officia oratoris) and concepts within individ-
ual duties, such as discovery, invention of arguments11 (Lat. inventio), selection
and arrangement of arguments (Lat. dipositio), the style, articulation of argu-
ments (Lat. elocutio), as well as their memorisation (Lat. memoria) and pres-
entation (Lat. actio). Moreover, argumentation represents a field that is both
within and outside of rhetoric. On the one hand it is defined as part of con-
temporary theoretical directions as a conceptually independent activity/disci-
pline, and it is simultaneously recognised within ‘a rhetorically historical con-
text’, as part of the (rhetorical) concept of three means of persuasion (i.e. as
part of pisteis and the well-known Aristotelian triad ethos–pathos–logos, where
the last principle represents the so-called ‘rational form of persuasion’, and the
first two the ‘irrational’, ‘illogical’ forms).12 From the perspective of contempo-
rary argumentation theories represented by Toulmin (1958/1995), van Eemer-
11 Here, the concept of‘argument’is not understood in the normative sense as a set of specifically con-
structed premises leading to a conclusion, but as a distinctly functional, i.e. in terms of contents and
structure, highly diverse selection of utterances that may, considering the circumstances, suitably
support what one wishes to say.
12 Ethos denotes a discourse construction or a presentation of the speaker’s trustworthy image based
on creating the impression of their good sense, integrity and good intentions; pathos is a collection
of various different kinds of strategies (linguistic and non-linguistic), by means of which the speaker
tries to evoke the listeners’ emotional response (e.g. anger, fear, joy, etc.), which corresponds to
the content/topic of the speech. The expressions rational and irrational are, within the context of
rhetoric and argumentation in terms of their functionality, regarded as perfectly equivalent means
of persuasion, whose differentiation is based on the level of the discourse situation (who is the
audience and what is the speech about?) and presents a collection of various linguistic and non-
linguistic techniques and strategies. For more on the concept of means of persuasion see Žmavc
(2009a, 2009b, 2012).
rhetoric and argumentation as factors in student achievement
