Page 151 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 151
i. ž. žagar ■ slovenian experience with rhetoric in primary schools
why things are as they are, while they could be completely different > why
there is something while it could be nothing. But this emphasis on plurali-
ty has a very rhetorical twist: if it is possible to look at the same thing from
different perspectives, we can also represent it (construct it) from differ-
ent perspectives.
Therefore, if this is how things are (different perspectives > different
conclusions > different truths), how do we tell facts from fiction, truth
from falsehood? The is a question of paramount importance in the world
we live in, and a question that always surfaced at our in-service training of
future teachers of rhetoric.
Some Problems with the Syllabus
That is where and why we introduced the “ethics of dialogue” in the sylla-
bus. I must state from the very start that naming this objective “the eth-
ics of dialogue” was a mistake, and that we did not really succeed with this
objective. It was not to be about politeness and respect, and etiquette, it
was meant to be about how things work in everyday conversation, that
everything that is communicated is not told explicitly (Grice, 1989), and
that there are structures in language, which are systems that have argu-
mentative potential, certain argumentative orientation (Ducrot, 1996;
2009), which we have to pay attention to when constructing our argu-
ments and speeches.
Here were our goals for this objective (Žagar, Ž. et al., 1999/2004,
p. 5):
a) “Pupils learn the unwritten rules that lead a conversation (under-
stand maxims of quality, quantity, relation and manner)”.
What we had in mind was, of course, Grice’s Logic and Conversation
(1989, pp. 26–28) with his famous maxims:
1. The maxim of quantity, where one tries to be as informative as one
possibly can, and gives as much information as is needed, and no
more.
2. The maxim of quality, where one tries to be truthful, and does not
give information that is false or that is not supported by evidence.
3. The maxim of relation, where one tries to be relevant, and says things
that are pertinent to the discussion.
4. The maxim of manner, when one tries to be as clear, as brief, and as
orderly as one can in what one says, and where one avoids obscurity
and ambiguity.
5. In spite of the fact that these maxims just elaborate on our every-
day conversation activity, translating it into a more standardized and
149
why things are as they are, while they could be completely different > why
there is something while it could be nothing. But this emphasis on plurali-
ty has a very rhetorical twist: if it is possible to look at the same thing from
different perspectives, we can also represent it (construct it) from differ-
ent perspectives.
Therefore, if this is how things are (different perspectives > different
conclusions > different truths), how do we tell facts from fiction, truth
from falsehood? The is a question of paramount importance in the world
we live in, and a question that always surfaced at our in-service training of
future teachers of rhetoric.
Some Problems with the Syllabus
That is where and why we introduced the “ethics of dialogue” in the sylla-
bus. I must state from the very start that naming this objective “the eth-
ics of dialogue” was a mistake, and that we did not really succeed with this
objective. It was not to be about politeness and respect, and etiquette, it
was meant to be about how things work in everyday conversation, that
everything that is communicated is not told explicitly (Grice, 1989), and
that there are structures in language, which are systems that have argu-
mentative potential, certain argumentative orientation (Ducrot, 1996;
2009), which we have to pay attention to when constructing our argu-
ments and speeches.
Here were our goals for this objective (Žagar, Ž. et al., 1999/2004,
p. 5):
a) “Pupils learn the unwritten rules that lead a conversation (under-
stand maxims of quality, quantity, relation and manner)”.
What we had in mind was, of course, Grice’s Logic and Conversation
(1989, pp. 26–28) with his famous maxims:
1. The maxim of quantity, where one tries to be as informative as one
possibly can, and gives as much information as is needed, and no
more.
2. The maxim of quality, where one tries to be truthful, and does not
give information that is false or that is not supported by evidence.
3. The maxim of relation, where one tries to be relevant, and says things
that are pertinent to the discussion.
4. The maxim of manner, when one tries to be as clear, as brief, and as
orderly as one can in what one says, and where one avoids obscurity
and ambiguity.
5. In spite of the fact that these maxims just elaborate on our every-
day conversation activity, translating it into a more standardized and
149
