“The Rhetorical Tradition

Dr. Mark Stoner

At the conclusion of this lecture you will:

1)be able to define “rhetoric”

2a)understand the relationship of rhetoric to social needs and social conditions

2b)be able to list and characterize the three major periods of rhetorical development

3a)be familiar with the names of some of the major rhetorical theorists of all three periods

3b)be familiar with some of the major practitioners of rhetoric during the three major periods

I. Rhetoric has been defined in a variety of ways.

A. Aristotle: “The power of discovering in the particular case what are the available means of persuasion” (Cooper 7).

B. Quintilian: “Oratory is the power of persuading” (Bizzell and Herzberg 319).

C. Bacon: “The end of Rhetoric is to fill the imagination to second reason” (Bizzell and

Herzberg 629).

D. Campbell: “That art or talent by which the discourse is adapted to its end” (Bizzell and

Herzberg 749).

E. Weaver: “Rhetoric is the truth plus artful presentation.” (Foss, Foss and Trapp. 2nd., 64)

F. Ehninger: “By practical discourse I mean discourse, written or oral, that seeks to inform, evaluate or persuade, and therefore is to be distinguished from discourse that seeks to please, elevate, or depict” (Johannesen 327)

Given these, how would you define Rhetoric?

II. Rhetoric can be divided into three main traditions resulting from social conditions.

THE CLASSICAL TRADITION

Ancient Period: (500 B.C. - 450 A.D.)

Corax (one of the earliest rhetoricians)

Aristotle (scientist; rhetorician)

Quintilian

took a GRAMMATICAL or CATEGORICAL approach to analysis of rhetoric


(from Stoner and Perkins)

British period (1650-1920)

Hugh Blair

George Campbell

Richard Whately

took PSYCHOLOGICAL approach to rhetoric

Proofs were no longer categorical, but related to how people process information:

experience

analogy

testimony

calculation of chances (statistics)

Contemporaryperiod (1920-present);

takes a SOCIOLOGICAL approach Some contemporary theorists:

l.A. Richards: focused on understanding how language works to understand how it affects message consumers. Seeing language as essentially metaphorical he laid out seven functions of language:

indicating, characterizing, realizing, valuing, influencing, controlling, purposing.

How are these functions borne out in the statements below?

“She’s a babe!”“He’s a stud!”

When speakers and audiences are confused about what function is being featured in an interaction, there is confusion about meaning.

Richard Weaver: focused on the values expressed in choices made by speakers as they try to influence audiences. The kinds of arguments chosen by rhetors gives us a glimpse of the heart and mind of the speaker. We may argue from definition (the strongest), similitude, cause-effect, authority, and circumstance (the weakest)

What kind of argument is the following?

“I didn’t get my project in on time because I was drunk all weekend.

Stephen Toulmin; Chaim Perelman: the focus of both of these writers was the specific area of argument as the province of rhetoric. Both understood rhetoric to be grounded in the kind of argument and reason-giving we do in everyday life, not the kind of reasoning done in philosophy (formalist) . Toulmin is noted for his description of practical argument as consisting of the following:

DATACLAIM

WARRANT / REAS ONS

Perelman called the argumentation of everyday life, QUASI-LOGICAL because it resembled philosophical argument.

Kenneth Burke: Burke’s great contribution was the expansion of rhetoric to include anything that could be construed as human symbolic action. He is best known for his isolation of five aspects of a message known as the PENTAD: act, agent, agency, scene, purpose. Analysis of the interaction of these dimensions (ratios) allows one to analyze the motives of a rhetor. Taken together, Burke’s ideas form an approach to communication known as DRAMATISM.

Michel Foucault: One of the more provocative of the European thinkers, Foucault is a philosopher/historian who became interested in rhetoric as his studies showed him the relationship between discourse and power and knowledge through deeply embedded governing rules. The value of Foucault’s work is that it provides concepts that allow us to examine the rhetoric of whole cultures, not just individuals or groups.

Summary

We have distinguished three rhetorical traditions that can be seen as unique, but certainly are not unrelated. Changes in Western civilization have demanded changes in both how we practice and explain rhetoric.

Rhetoric and its counterpart, rhetorical criticism, are essential for complex societies to coordinate social action. As we saw in the slide show, many orators have effected significant change in human societies over time. Critics play an increasingly important role in this work by tempering the effects of speech, informing audiences about how messages effect them and hold speakers accountable for what they say.

WORKS CITED

Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg, eds. The Rhetorical Tradition.

Boston:Bedford Books, 1990.

Cooper, Lane, trans. The Rhetoric of Aristotle. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall, 1932.

Enos, Richard. Greek Rhetoric Before Aristotle. ProspectHeights,

ILL:Waveland, 1993.

Foss, Sonja, Karen Foss and Robert Trapp. ContemporaryPerspectives on Rhetoric, 2nd ed. Prospect Heights, ILL: Waveland, 1991.

Johannesen, Richard, ed. Contemporary Theories of Rhetoric: Selected Readings. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.

Stoner, Mark and Sally Perkins. Making Sense of Messages: A Critical Apprenticeship in

Rhetorical Criticism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2005.