Page 133 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 133
p. aczél ■ a road to rhetorica: teaching rhetoric as social sensitivity ...
2009). Reasonably, rhetorical analysis can be applied to advertisement
reels, video narratives at community sharing sites and comments to on-
line contents or interviews, news and scientific lectures as well as typi-
cal public speeches (tributes, ceremonial speeches, parliamentary contri-
butions, or political campaigns). The procedure of rhetorical analysis can
be applied to (1) exploring the meaning and functions of the situation and
speech acts, (2) examining the issue, topic or idea, (3) analysing the modes
of reasoning and proofs, (4) studying the structure of the communication,
(5) discussing the elements of expressivity, (6) analysing the mode of per-
formance and (7) examining the medium (Aczél, 2016).
The process of rhetorical criticism begins with description, contin-
ues with analysis, is summarized through interpretation and ends in eval-
uation. In each of these study areas, it is essential to raise questions pre-
cisely and openly, and to reveal one’s own personal relations (Hart and
Daughton, 2005, Stoner and Perkins, 2016). Rhetorical analysis is also a
rhetorical act, a specific explorative-assertive and an argumentative way of
writing. The constant elements of critical analysis are (a) setting the prob-
lem, (b) formulating the basic question, (c) describing the selected rhetor-
ical act and artifact, (d) presenting the method and aspects of analysis, (e)
summarizing the results of analysis, answering the basic question and (f)
indicating the further challenges of analysis (Foss, 2009, pp. 9–21). Rhe-
torical criticism as the facilitator of analytical skills is complemented by
the acquisition of rhetorical invention as a process. In the present con-
ception of teaching rhetoric, argumentation is considered not a part of
text construction or expression, but an element of attention and a way of
thinking whose nature is defined by the dynamics of raising questions and
making claims. This view is based on the distinction that argumentation
can be interpreted as the construction of arguments, as a product; a rule
of constructing arguments, as a procedure; or the counterposition of argu-
ments, as a process (Wenzel, 1992).
Depending on the aspect assumed in its description, argumentation can
have several definitions. On the one hand, when we think of arguments
as a set of statements, argumentation can be considered an outcome
or product. This approach may be attributed primarily to logic, since it
studies the abstract relations between specific statements. On the other
hand, if argumentation is described from its practical point of view, then
we can see a process where participants pose arguments for their own
or against each other’s stances. This method is applied in the approach
assumed by rhetoric and dialectic. Rhetoric explores how effective the
orator is in persuading his audience through his speech. In contrast, di-
131
2009). Reasonably, rhetorical analysis can be applied to advertisement
reels, video narratives at community sharing sites and comments to on-
line contents or interviews, news and scientific lectures as well as typi-
cal public speeches (tributes, ceremonial speeches, parliamentary contri-
butions, or political campaigns). The procedure of rhetorical analysis can
be applied to (1) exploring the meaning and functions of the situation and
speech acts, (2) examining the issue, topic or idea, (3) analysing the modes
of reasoning and proofs, (4) studying the structure of the communication,
(5) discussing the elements of expressivity, (6) analysing the mode of per-
formance and (7) examining the medium (Aczél, 2016).
The process of rhetorical criticism begins with description, contin-
ues with analysis, is summarized through interpretation and ends in eval-
uation. In each of these study areas, it is essential to raise questions pre-
cisely and openly, and to reveal one’s own personal relations (Hart and
Daughton, 2005, Stoner and Perkins, 2016). Rhetorical analysis is also a
rhetorical act, a specific explorative-assertive and an argumentative way of
writing. The constant elements of critical analysis are (a) setting the prob-
lem, (b) formulating the basic question, (c) describing the selected rhetor-
ical act and artifact, (d) presenting the method and aspects of analysis, (e)
summarizing the results of analysis, answering the basic question and (f)
indicating the further challenges of analysis (Foss, 2009, pp. 9–21). Rhe-
torical criticism as the facilitator of analytical skills is complemented by
the acquisition of rhetorical invention as a process. In the present con-
ception of teaching rhetoric, argumentation is considered not a part of
text construction or expression, but an element of attention and a way of
thinking whose nature is defined by the dynamics of raising questions and
making claims. This view is based on the distinction that argumentation
can be interpreted as the construction of arguments, as a product; a rule
of constructing arguments, as a procedure; or the counterposition of argu-
ments, as a process (Wenzel, 1992).
Depending on the aspect assumed in its description, argumentation can
have several definitions. On the one hand, when we think of arguments
as a set of statements, argumentation can be considered an outcome
or product. This approach may be attributed primarily to logic, since it
studies the abstract relations between specific statements. On the other
hand, if argumentation is described from its practical point of view, then
we can see a process where participants pose arguments for their own
or against each other’s stances. This method is applied in the approach
assumed by rhetoric and dialectic. Rhetoric explores how effective the
orator is in persuading his audience through his speech. In contrast, di-
131
