Teaching rhetoric
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21030/anyp.2016.2.1Keywords:
rhetorical sensitivity-behaviour, rhetorical criticism, creating speech, debate, dialogueAbstract
Teaching rhetoric faces many challenges today. The present study is an initiative and a proposal to refresh the approach of the educational program of rhetoric. As a starting point, it considers rhetoric not as a device system of preparing speeches but as sensitivity and behaviour. Rhetorical education thus focuses not on the creation of a full-fledged text but on developing a communicating personality, the independent ’rhetorical citizen’. The corresponding educational method does not reject the knowledge and use of the classical discipline, on the contrary it aims to show and apply its dynamic capacity. The bottom line of the educational process grabbed and described in three phases is that it considers rhetorical communication a process rather than a product. This integrative perspective enables us to teach rhetoric in the secondary school as a common, creating language and communication activity with more enthusiasm.
References
Aczél Petra 2015a. Évezredes újszerűség. A retorika jelentősége a tanárképzésben és az oktatásban: kiindulások és alapelvek. In: Horváth H. Attila – Pálvölgyi Krisztián – Bodnár Éva – Sass Judit (szerk.) A tanárképzés jövőjéről. Átívelések 2. kötet. Oktatáskutató és Fejlesztő Intézet. Budapest. 21–36.
Aczél Petra 2015b. Retorika és kommunikációkutatás. A régi tudomány új nézőpontjai. Magyar Nyelv 311–319.
Adamikné Jászó Anna 2011. A szövegértő olvasás fejlesztésének új lehetősége: a retorikai elemzés. Könyv és Nevelés XIII/4.
http://olvasas.opkm.hu/portal/felso_menusor/konyv_es_neveles/a_szovegerto_olvasa
s_fejlesztesenek_uj_lehetosege_a_retorikai_elemzes (2016. április 6.)
Adamikné Jászó Anna 2013. Klasszikus magyar retorika. Holnap Kiadó. Budapest.
Bender, John – Wellbery, David E. 1990. Rhetoricality: On the Modernist Return of Rhetoric. In: Bender, John – Wellbery, David E. (eds.) The Ends of Rhetoric. History, Theory, Practice. Stanford University Press. Stanford CA. 3-39.
Bolonyai Gábor 2001. Az attikai szónoklás és rétorika. In: Bolonyai Gábor (szerk.) Antik szónoki gyakorlatok. Typotex. Budapest. 8–18.
Booth, Wayne C. 2003. Foreword. Seriously Considering Rhetoric Education. In: Petraglia, J. – Deepika, Bahri (eds.) The Realms of Rhetoric: The Prospects for Rhetoric Education. State University of New York Press. Albany, NY. vii–ix.
Borges, Jorge Luis 2002. A metafora. In: Borges, Jorge Luis: A költői mesterség. Európa. Budapest. 26–48.
Burke, Kenneth D. 1969. The Rhetoric of Motives. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.
Corder, Jim W. 1985. Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love. Rhetoric Review 4: 16–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07350198509359100
Darwin, Thomas J. 2003. Pathos, Pedagogy, and the Familiar: Cultivating Rhetorical Intelligence. In: Petraglia, J. – Deepika, Bahri (eds.) The Realms of Rhetoric: The Prospects for Rhetoric Education. State University of New York Press. Albany, NY. 23–37.
Dryzek, John S. 2010. Rhetoric in democracy: A systemic appreciation. Political Theory 38: 319–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591709359596
Dubois, J. – Edeline, F. – Klinkenberg, J.-M. – Minguet, P. – Pire, F. – Trinon, H. 1970. Rhétorique générale. Paris. Larousse.
Fitzpartick, Mary A. – Ritchie, David L. 2006. Communication Schemata Within the Family. Multiple Perspectives on Family Interactions. Human Communication Research 20: 275–301.
Fleming, David 1998. Rhetoric as a Course of Study. College English 61: 169–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/378878
Flower, Linda 2008. Community Literacy and the Rhetoric of Public Engagement. Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale, IL.
Fontana, Benedetto – Nederman, Cary J. – Remer, Gary 2004. Introduction: Deliberative Democracy and the Rhetorical Turn. In: Fontana, Benedetto – Nederman, Cary J. – Remer, Gary (eds.) Talking Democracy: Historical Perspectives on Rhetoric and Democracy. Pennsylvania State University Press. University Park, PA. 1–26.
Forgács Gábor 2015. Az érvelés mint lehetséges tudomány: Az integrálás nehézségei. Élet és Tudomány 35: 1094–1096. http://www.eletestudomany.hu/az_erveles_mint_lehetseges_tudomany (2016. április 6.)
Foss, Sonja K. 2009. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Waveland Press. Long Grove, IL.
Gardner, Howard 1983. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books. New York.
Genette, Gérard 1970. La rhétorique restreinte. Communications 16: 158–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/comm.1970.1234
Guiraud, Pierre 1963. La stylistique. Presses Universitaires de France (P.U.F). Paris.
Hairston, Maxine 1974. A Contemporary Rhetoric. Houghton Mifflin. Boston, MA.
Hart, Roderick P. – Carlson, Robert E. – Eadie, William F. 1980. Attitudes Toward Communication and the Assessment of Rhetorical Sensitivity. Communication Monographs 47: 1–22.
Hart, Roderick P. – Daughton, Suzanne M. 2005. Modern Rhetorical Criticism. Pearson. Boston, MA.
Hart, Roderick P. 1993. Why Communication? Why Education? Toward a Politics of Teaching. Communication Education 42: 97–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634529309378918
Heinrichs, Jay 2007. Thank you for arguing. What Aristotle, Lincoln and Homer Simpson can teach us about the art of persuasion. Three Rivers Press. New York.
Hooghe, Marc – Quintelier, Ellen 2013. Political participation in European countries: The effect of authoritarian rule, corruption, lack of good governance and economic downturn. Comparative European Politics 12: 209–232.
Johnstone, Henry W. Jr. 2007. The Philosophical Basis of Rhetoric. In: Hauser, Gerard (ed.) Philosophy and Rhetoric in Dialogue: Redrawing Their Philosophical Landscape. The Pennsylvania State University Press. University Park, PA. 15–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/par.2007.0014
Kiss Balázs – Boda Zsolt 2005. Politika az interneten. Századvég Kiadó. Budapest.
Laclau, Ernesto 2014. The Rhetorical Foundations of Society. Verso. Brooklyn, NY.
Lanham, Richard 1976. The Rhetorical Ideal of Life. In: Lanham, Richard. The Motives of Eloquence. Literary Rhetoric in the Renaissance. Yale University Press. New Haven. 1–35.
Major Hajnalka 2011. Reflektálás egy jelenségre – retorikai szempontból. Az emelt szintű magyar nyelvi és irodalmi érettségi érvelési feladatának vizsgálata. Anyanyelv-pedagógia 4. http://www.anyanyelv-pedagogia.hu/cikkek.php?id=344 (2016. április 6.) https://doi.org/10.21030/anyp.2011.4.2
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus 2008. Szónoklattan (Fordította Adamik Tamás et al). Kalligram. Pozsony.
Montágh Imre 1996. Figyelem vagy fegyelem?! Holnap Kiadó. Budapest.
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2012. Not for Profit. Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.
Ong, Walter 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. (New Accents Series). Methuen. New York.
Rutten, Kris – Soetaert, Ronald 2013. Rhetoric, Citizenship and Cultural Literacy. In: Rutten, Kris – Vandermeersche, Geert (eds.) Introduction to Literacy and Society, Culture, Media and Education. CLC: Comparative Literature and Culture15.3. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.2242
Stoner, Mark – Perkins, Sally 2016. Making Sense of Messages. A Critical Apprenticeship in Rhetorical Criticism. Routledge. Abingdon, Oxon.
Struever, Nancy S. 1998. The Rhetoric of Familiarity: A Pedagogy of Ethics. Philosophy and Rhetoric 31: 91–106.
Toulmin, Stephen E. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Wenzel, Joseph W. 1992. Perspectives on Argument. In: Benoit, W. L. – Hample, D. – Benoit, P. J. Readings in Argumentation. Foris (Walter de Gruyter). New York. 121–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110885651.121
(1) TED.com. http://www.ted.com/ (2016. április 6.)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Petra Aczél
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The copyright of articles published in the journal belongs to the author. The journal has the right of first publication. The published work is licensed under Creative Commons License “Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International" (CC BY-NC 4.0). This means that copying, redistribution, remixing, transformation and building upon the published work is allowed for any purpose except commercial purposes as long as proper credit is given to the author, a link to the licence is provided, and any changes made to the original work are indicated.
The journal Anyanyelv-pedagógia [First Language Pedagogy] does not charge authors any fees for the processing, submission, or publication of articles. All writings published in the journal become freely accessible immediately after their publication.