Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Ancient Rhetoric vs. A Modern Approach
The chapters this week from Barnett really got me to thinking about the terminology we use when explaining the idea of an argument to students. As I read Toulmin's piece, I was struck by the use of legal jargon which does seem appropriate to argument; however, I am not sure such an approach would be any clearer to students than the Aristotle. I admit that Aristotle is very dense reading, but it can be effectively paraphrased without using a lot of the jargon. So, what Stygall mentions about how much more adaptable Toulmin's concept is in the classroom leaves me wondering as to what the "best" approach may be. I found both of the readings (Toulmin and Aristotle) to be a bit convoluted. Maybe it would be possible to explain the concepts of argument and logic without any of the jargon. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Rebecca,
I think too that it is possible to explain the basics of arguement to students without using many words from legal jargon. I would start from analysis of examples (as those given by Stygall). Most student will be able to distinguish statements, examples and evidence.
On the other hand, schemes of Tolumin really help me to comprehend the structure of argumentation. So probably I could even give the terms if it did not seem too hard for a particular group of students.
Post a Comment