Page 135 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 135
p. aczél ■ a road to rhetorica: teaching rhetoric as social sensitivity ...
serve as information sources generated through sharing knowledge and
experience. These alternative sites combine experiential knowledge acqui-
sition with the characteristics of rhetorical behaviour: resourcefulness,
vivid description, simplicity, the use of narratives, palpability, and con-
trasts. For example, the scientific and informative talks of TED.com are
always based on some problem that concerns many people, a particular
point of view, insightful descriptions, precise differentiation, disciplined
content-filtering, time management and the aim to mobilize (make peo-
ple think and raise awareness). That is why they seem more comprehensi-
ble and colourful, and leave a deeper impression on their audience than
school classes do.
Speakers who consider the addressee a subject-like, thinking human
being similar to themselves, not as an object, possess the properties of
modesty, high-level presence in the situation, attention and self-reflection.
In such a way, speaking uses genre as a recurrent unit of typical encoun-
ters and experiences, and infers it from the mental preparation conduct-
ed in the first phase. The dichotomy of evaluation and recommendation
gives rise to the classical triad of speech genres: one that evaluates, consid-
ers, confirms and judges; the other that recommends, initiates, discourag-
es or encourages; and the third that induces empathy, engages, identifies
or alienates. Actually, these three speech genres (fact, action, value, Hein-
richs, 2007) are three modes or linguistic-pragmatic-aesthetic categories
of rhetorical behaviour and encounter.
The instruction of structuring principles for speaking is suited to the
social situation, goals and the intended effect to be generated in and in co-
operation with the addressee. It depends on the imaginability of collec-
tive discovery and the potential processes of an attitudinal change. In this
sense, parts of the speech are not content-related but, for both the com-
municator and the addressee, stimulating units that draw and maintain
attention, engage the audience (introduction, narrative), enable emotional
attachment (digression), encourage causal and analytical thinking (proof
and refutation), demand participation (enthymeme), generate the joy of
structure (conclusion), foster imagination (tropes), record what has been
heard (figures of speech) and elevate the situation to an event. The good
speech is a building where you can easily find your way around, which
makes you feel at home and can be visited from time to time – because it
is based on the holistic logic of oral cultures (Ong, 1982). Hence, rhetor-
ical communication also makes use of visual-spatial intelligence (Gard-
ner, 1983).
133
serve as information sources generated through sharing knowledge and
experience. These alternative sites combine experiential knowledge acqui-
sition with the characteristics of rhetorical behaviour: resourcefulness,
vivid description, simplicity, the use of narratives, palpability, and con-
trasts. For example, the scientific and informative talks of TED.com are
always based on some problem that concerns many people, a particular
point of view, insightful descriptions, precise differentiation, disciplined
content-filtering, time management and the aim to mobilize (make peo-
ple think and raise awareness). That is why they seem more comprehensi-
ble and colourful, and leave a deeper impression on their audience than
school classes do.
Speakers who consider the addressee a subject-like, thinking human
being similar to themselves, not as an object, possess the properties of
modesty, high-level presence in the situation, attention and self-reflection.
In such a way, speaking uses genre as a recurrent unit of typical encoun-
ters and experiences, and infers it from the mental preparation conduct-
ed in the first phase. The dichotomy of evaluation and recommendation
gives rise to the classical triad of speech genres: one that evaluates, consid-
ers, confirms and judges; the other that recommends, initiates, discourag-
es or encourages; and the third that induces empathy, engages, identifies
or alienates. Actually, these three speech genres (fact, action, value, Hein-
richs, 2007) are three modes or linguistic-pragmatic-aesthetic categories
of rhetorical behaviour and encounter.
The instruction of structuring principles for speaking is suited to the
social situation, goals and the intended effect to be generated in and in co-
operation with the addressee. It depends on the imaginability of collec-
tive discovery and the potential processes of an attitudinal change. In this
sense, parts of the speech are not content-related but, for both the com-
municator and the addressee, stimulating units that draw and maintain
attention, engage the audience (introduction, narrative), enable emotional
attachment (digression), encourage causal and analytical thinking (proof
and refutation), demand participation (enthymeme), generate the joy of
structure (conclusion), foster imagination (tropes), record what has been
heard (figures of speech) and elevate the situation to an event. The good
speech is a building where you can easily find your way around, which
makes you feel at home and can be visited from time to time – because it
is based on the holistic logic of oral cultures (Ong, 1982). Hence, rhetor-
ical communication also makes use of visual-spatial intelligence (Gard-
ner, 1983).
133
