Page 126 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 126
šolsko polje, letnik xxx, številka 5–6
ysis, style and argumentation. Key content elements include the structural
units and genres of speech and types of arguments — students should be
able to identify as well as apply these elements. The approach this curricu-
lum apparently takes to rhetoric is primarily static and not dynamic: it is
concerned with producing texts. In speech preparation, emphasis tends to
be on construction and expression rather than on argumentation — stu-
dents often fail to learn and confidently use the latter (Major, 2011). This
result-oriented approach (the goal being the creation of a text) leads to
teachers and students interpreting rhetoric as a product instead of as an
activity, associating it only with certain verbal (oral and written) genres,
tools and effects of communication. This insistence on completed texts
weakens the perception of rhetoric as an intelligent process utilising atten-
tion, invention, situation-awareness and flexibility.
Rhetoric education in Hungary today seems to reflect the process
of the general reduction that started with Petrus Ramus in the sixteenth
century (Genette, 1977), and first bereaved rhetoric of invention and ar-
rangement (the very steps that enhance cognitive and critical skills),
narrowing its leeway predominantly to the linguistic aesthetic reposi-
tory of elocution. It also condemned the effect of expression as dubi-
ous and dangerous, ultimately identifying rhetoric as “ancient stylistics”
(Guiraud, 1963, p. 23), or a toolkit of linguistic operations (Dubois et al.,
1970). The emergence of an artifact- and operation-centred education
with a structuralist, belletristic, neo-rhetorical basis has been thus nec-
essary but ineffectual. To put it more sharply, it did not prove to be an
indispensable, durable and likeable practice for either the teacher or the
student of today. In what follows, I shall discuss a different understand-
ing of rhetoric and the applicable principles and methods that can serve
it (Aczél, 2016).
Rhetoric as a social science
Rhetoric is the most socially-oriented aspect of human communication
and its study. It is concerned with the methods by which human interac-
tions help people reach common agreements which later allow societies
to make common efforts and perform deeds while forming a function-
ing community. Rhetoric is concerned with the coordination of social ac-
tivities using verbal symbols, visual signs and bodily movements (Haus-
er, 2002, pp. 7–13). As an action, it is characterised by seven factors which
also provide the conceptual framework for the theory of rhetoric. Rhet-
oric is:
– situational action,
124
ysis, style and argumentation. Key content elements include the structural
units and genres of speech and types of arguments — students should be
able to identify as well as apply these elements. The approach this curricu-
lum apparently takes to rhetoric is primarily static and not dynamic: it is
concerned with producing texts. In speech preparation, emphasis tends to
be on construction and expression rather than on argumentation — stu-
dents often fail to learn and confidently use the latter (Major, 2011). This
result-oriented approach (the goal being the creation of a text) leads to
teachers and students interpreting rhetoric as a product instead of as an
activity, associating it only with certain verbal (oral and written) genres,
tools and effects of communication. This insistence on completed texts
weakens the perception of rhetoric as an intelligent process utilising atten-
tion, invention, situation-awareness and flexibility.
Rhetoric education in Hungary today seems to reflect the process
of the general reduction that started with Petrus Ramus in the sixteenth
century (Genette, 1977), and first bereaved rhetoric of invention and ar-
rangement (the very steps that enhance cognitive and critical skills),
narrowing its leeway predominantly to the linguistic aesthetic reposi-
tory of elocution. It also condemned the effect of expression as dubi-
ous and dangerous, ultimately identifying rhetoric as “ancient stylistics”
(Guiraud, 1963, p. 23), or a toolkit of linguistic operations (Dubois et al.,
1970). The emergence of an artifact- and operation-centred education
with a structuralist, belletristic, neo-rhetorical basis has been thus nec-
essary but ineffectual. To put it more sharply, it did not prove to be an
indispensable, durable and likeable practice for either the teacher or the
student of today. In what follows, I shall discuss a different understand-
ing of rhetoric and the applicable principles and methods that can serve
it (Aczél, 2016).
Rhetoric as a social science
Rhetoric is the most socially-oriented aspect of human communication
and its study. It is concerned with the methods by which human interac-
tions help people reach common agreements which later allow societies
to make common efforts and perform deeds while forming a function-
ing community. Rhetoric is concerned with the coordination of social ac-
tivities using verbal symbols, visual signs and bodily movements (Haus-
er, 2002, pp. 7–13). As an action, it is characterised by seven factors which
also provide the conceptual framework for the theory of rhetoric. Rhet-
oric is:
– situational action,
124
