Talk:Rhetoric/Archive 1

1365:

for good/interesting reasons (e.g. because of their arguments sound a lot like the early sophists, like protagoras, gorgias, etc.) and for bad reasons (e.g. because they associate rhetoric--which is seen as a lowly service curriculum by most people in universities--with theories that were very fashionable in the humanities in the 1980s in a vain effort to make rhetoric respectable to other people in the humanities who are still impressed by these fashions). the irony is that the good reasons, the ones about the harmony between the arguments of the poststructuralists and the sophists, are built on a transhistorical continuity that the poststructrualists, mentioned in the bad reasons, would systematically reject. if people like austin, derrida, foucault are mentioned in this article as "rhetoricians", i think it would be ambitious, if not plainly wrong. any mention of them should emphasize that they are "popular among rhetoricians" or "have been assoicated with rhetoric for x,y, & z reasons." to call them rhetoricians or to put them at the center of rhetoric is anachronistic.

1024:

into the development of literary criticism in the late nineteenth. There are numerous links to Lit. Crit. in both the history and practise of rhetoric, and these could be profitably explored, along with more detailed work on Burke in particular. Under (2), I would recommend cutting nearly all of this. I loved Macluhan when I was an undergraduate, but going back to "Understanding Media," recently, I was appalled at the leaps in logic, and the questionable assertions used to back up some of his claims, not to mention the paucity of documentation for some of his flashier ideas. It's a provocative work, but not a scholarly one, and doesn't deserve highlighting in an article supposed to offer a basic outline of the history of the field. (15 July 06)

1384:

about it is dismissive. (Nevertheless, these comments have been the focus of analysis by self-identified rhetorical scholars since well before these lectures were widely known). I think you're incorrect that "poststructuralists" would "systematically reject" the arguments about the harmony between the arguments of poststructuralists and sophists, but I agree with your point that it would be wrong to describe many of these figures as rhetoricians is not acceptable for Knowledge. It would be acceptable to quote other scholars calling them rhetoricians but I'm not sure that is happening either. Nevertheless, there is little question that these figures are in the mainstream of contemporary rhetorical theory these days.

1474:"Historically, Classical Rhetoric has its inception in a school of Pre-Socratic philosophers known as Sophists. It is later taught as one of the three original liberal arts or trivium (the other members are dialectic and grammar) in Western culture. In ancient and medieval times, grammar concerned itself with correct, accurate, pleasing, and effective language use through the study and criticism of literary models, dialectic concerned itself with the testing and invention of new knowledge through a process of question and answer, and rhetoric concerned itself with persuasion in public and political settings such as assemblies and courts of law." 677:

the general public thinks of rhetoric with negative connotations, I don't think academia has abandoned it, and considering the growth of programs in rhetoric and composition, I think it's becoming less trivial all the time. I'd be happy to chat more about this if you haven't had a chance to explore rhetoric's connections to composition theory yet. (Karen M. Kuralt, ABD, English/Rhetoric and Composition, Purdue University; Asst. Prof. of Rhetoric and Writing, University of Arkansas at Little Rock)

1069:

is an elementary introduction to the topic, but to be encyclopedic it should at least mention the second sophistic and its luminaries, as well as others just before and after. Dio Chrysostom, Aelius Aristides, and Libanius were all influential and important in their day and afterward. Rhetorical treatises in the names of Hermogenes, Menander, and Aristides were also produced in the third century. Some mention ought to be made of these--CRATYLUS22

247:

do. Everything has multiple definitions. Defining a word as "definitionless" is about as useful as useful as a book on trees describing an oak tree as "having gone by so many names in so many languages, no one name can do it justice." I thought, looking at the rhetoric entry, I'd gather a pretty decent understanding of what it is. But apparently, based on the overview, no one has any fucking clue what it is. Otherwise, they would define it.

31: 1407:

special claim here. any claim that rhetoricians make on them could be legitimately contested by folks in these other areas. i think its fair to say that these theorists have had wide and significant influence on the humanities and social sciences and, by extension, on rhetorical studies. but its also fair to say that many rhetoricians have found their work valuable and consonant with the "rhetorical tradition".

709:. I realize this is very broad, but it seems to be a good starting point for helping students realize where different interpretations of rhetoric arise, depending on how theorists approach the elements I've italicized. One of the most important debates that you might want to address is the question of whether rhetoric is an independent area of knowledge (is rhetoric 1203:

Olbrechts-Tyteca; 4. Edwin Black and the break w/neo-Aristotelianism; 5. the 1960's and social movements; 6. postmodern trends and influences (Raymie McKerrow, Foucault, Derrida, etc.); 7. recent prominent developments ("the rhetoric of ..."; McGee and ideographs; Marxist influences (Althusser, Cloud, etc.), prophetic rhetoric (Darsey), etc.

608:

were the first professional teachers, so it is a foundational concept in the social and behavioral sciences. At a practical level, the British social psychologist, Michael Billig, coined the term "witcraft" for the application of rhetoric to psychology. Paul Larson, Ph.D., Chicago School of Professional Psychology

1471:

persuasion through the use of spoken and written language; however, this definition of rhetoric has expanded greatly since rhetoric emerged as a field of study in universities. In this sense, there is a divide between classical rhetoric (with the aforementioned definition) and contemporary practices of rhetoric.

1733:

in Troy, after it has been captured, expounds to Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles, what course he ought to pursue in order to win a good reputation.") The essence of rhetoric is that it is one person speaking to an audience that doesn't respond by answering. This is in contrast to dialectic, which is

1720:

that he is using his dialectic "to prove to you, in order to persuade you, if I can, to change your mind and, instead of a life of intemperate craving which can never be satisfied, to choose a temperate life which is content with whatever comes to hand and asks no more." Persuasion is not the essence

1214:

Well, I've just read it, and if this needs a "clean-up", then so do 99% of the articles on WP. It's one of the best here, and congrats to the people who did it. Btw, it would be an idea to sign and date your comments, especially when they concern topical matters such as "What needs to be done". As it

676:

I wonder about your characterization of rhetoric as "apparently trivial" to the masses. I am completing a Ph.D. in Rhetoric and Composition, and I work at a university where rhetoric has its own department -- separate from the English, communications, and marketing departments. While it's true that

528:

I hope no one objects too strenuously to my reworking of the article on Rhetoric. I still don't think it's complete. My current concern was to provide some understanding of how rhetoric once was so important, but now is so trivial (in the popular view, that is). The quickest way to do so seemed to

270:

To give an exhaustive list of the main branches of philosophy is difficult, because there have been different, equally acceptable divisions at different times, and the divisions are often relative to the concerns of a particular period. However, the following branches are usually accepted as the main

1654:

In a nutshell, rhetoric is simply a monologue in which a speaker does not expect listeners to respond. This is distinguished from dialectic (dialogue or conversation) in which listeners respond to the speaker. Therefore, a rhetorical question is a question that is not answered. A rhetorical question

1470:

I read the entire first two paragraphs with a good idea of what rhetoric is in my head, and I now have no idea what it is. I think the Socratic details could have waited until later paragraphs. Rhetoric (from Greek ῥήτωρ, rhêtôr, orator, teacher) is generally understood to be the art or technique of

1383:

Nietzsche's earliest published lectures were on classical rhetorical theory, so it's almost a little backwards to say he was "drafted by rhetoric"; in a way he was "drafted" by philosophy. Foucault writes about classical rhetoric in his lectures on hermeneutics and on parrhesia, though what he says

1364:

i wonder, though, if austin, derrida, & foucault self-identified as a rhetoricians, or if they were commonly associated with "rhetoric" as it existed when they were alive and working. they (and a host of others like, say, nietzsche) have certainly been drafted by rhetoric people in universities

1356:

Honestly, because of the nature of language and rhetoric, I wouldn't be surprised if this took a HUGE effort to categorize. I personally think that there should be a brief synopsis on classical and contemporary rhetoric, and then be split up into two separate articles. I really think the section on

634:

Yeah. I started to notice that as I read about rhetoric. Seemed like the only way to intelligently persuade someone is by playing mind games, AKA psychological warfare via rhetoric. I pretty much equate it all to sophistry and like Plato's view. However, some people are arguing that people who don't

1576:

I feel that to define modern rhetorical theory as those "aritculation(s) and communication(s)" that have meaning is far too simplistic. A debate that many rhetoricians enjoy today actually concerns the relevance of attaching meaning to ANY textual utterance(whether it be written text, film, oral,

1077:

While I am not well versed in McLuhan's writings, I wonder if the sentence about his upcoming work is necessary in this article. I recommend deleting it, or at least not mentioning it as though it were an advertisement. The point of the page is to discuss Rhetoric, not scholarly books on sale soon.

1068:

This article is deficient in that its history makes no mention of the second sophistic, the second, third and fourth centuries or the rhetorical handbooks produced in that period or the Byzantine schools of rhetoric that came from them. It skips directly from Quintilian to Augustine. I realize this

607:

Rhetoric is a fundamental tool in applied social psychology, among other domains, but at least all of the things professional psychologists do are based on their skills at interpersonal persuasion. Can't cut, push pills, or massage; can only talk. Even teaching is based on rhetoric, the "rhetors"

375:

2. I think "language" is being used in the lay sense of "spoken/written language". I forget the proper linguistic term for what I want to say, but I think you see what I'm getting at. If you can think of a linguistic term that a) communicates the meaning I just explained, and b) is understandable

1584:

Finally (for now), the article is far too long and tries to cover too much for the guidelines and standards as I understand them here. I am considering editing the article into at least three stand alone atricles: A broad introduction from which one can access the History, Development and Current

1202:

I agree with these three recommendations. The discussion concerning McLuhan is highly misleading and belongs somewhere else. A more reasonable history of modern rhetoric might look more like this: 1. Wichelns and the neo-Aristotelian tradition; 2. Burke (especially identification); 3. Perelman and

992:

Rhetoric in of itself is strictly translated as the art of speech and writing. Writing, as everybody knows, deals with another form of voice -- an internal one. Therefore, to speak further on the topic, a look into what makes writing different from speaking needs to be adressed (which I would be

573:

In a nutshell, rhetoric is a monologue in which a speaker does not expect listeners to respond. This is distinguished from dialectic (dialogue or conversation) in which listeners respond to the speaker. That is why when one speaker asks a question and does not expect an answer from another person,

246:

The entire overview is vague and juvenile. " has had so many meaning, no one meaning can do it justice." is the opening of a lame BBC documentary, not the overview of a millenia-old phrase in an encyclopedia. People don't look to encyclopedias only to find that it doesn't know any more than they

1755:

the problem is that rhetoric has been every one of the things that you list, jforrest, and that the quest to determine what rhetoric "actually" is is going to be disappointing and frustrating. one way to explain what rhetoric is is to say that trying to determine what rhetoric "actually" is is a

1034:

I agree that the McLuhan stuff needs to be moved to the McLuhan page, and a link provided. I read McLuhan's stuff as a CompSci undergraduate (in Australia, that's unusual), but the only one of his books that I purchased after reading was the Gutenberg Galaxy. IIRC, he afterwards thought that in

1023:

The more serious problem is that this is (1) incomplete and (2) heavily tilted towards the writer's interest in Macluhan, who, though he was briefly important (1962-72), was also highly over-praised. Under (1) what's needed is to carry the story through the 18th and early 19th centuries, and then

310:

myself, i like the last "definition" in the document the best: "What we won’t be doing in this introductory chapter is telling you flat out what rhetoric is in fifty words or less—other than to say it always has to do with the production/interpretation of symbolic acts and usually has to do with

250:

Q: "What is rhetoric?" A: "Generally, rhetoric is the ability to use language effectively." Q: "What about specifically?" A: "Specifically, it can apply to oration, prose and verse, and most often holds connotations of persuasiveness. A master of rhetoric is often someone with an artful skill of

113:

In a nutshell, rhetoric is simply a monologue in which a speaker does not expect listeners to respond. This is distinguished from dialectic (dialogue or conversation) in which listeners respond to the speaker. That is why when one speaker asks a question and does not expect an answer from another

1759:

these days, of course most people think of rhetoric as "empty words" or "lies." occasionally people have some experience with rhetoric in school, where they learn that it is a curriculum for learning how to write and speak effectively. but as with any course of study that has existed since the

1609:

Rhetoric (from Greek ῥήτωρ, rhêtôr, orator, teacher) the definition of rhetoric has expanded greatly since rhetoric emerged as a field of study in universities. In this sense, there is a divide between classical rhetoric (with the aforementioned definition) and contemporary practices of rhetoric

1580:

Further, I have a real problem with the entirety of the McLuhan section under the History of Modern Rhetoric heading--he simply is not that seminal to the course of Modern Rhetorical Theory--however popular he may be. This section should be completely re-written to include more rhetoricians and

1210:

Is it just me, or is the article too long? Covers too many diverse aspects of rhetoric without summarizing and/or proper distinction by structure.I think major themes need to be summarized and shunted off to their own articles to facilitate readability and comprehensibility, and also to try and

79:

While in modern times most people think of Cicero's speeches etc. if they hear the term "rhetoric", that was completely different in ancient Athens. Even Plato still knew that oratory was public speech while rhetoric was the art of discussion (sic!), preferably in small groups. And no, rhetor (=

1406:

agreed that lots of rhetorical theorists are excited about derrida, foucault, and austin for a number of reasons. but so are cultural theorists, anthropologists, womens studies scholars, historians, literary studies scholars, philosophers, art historians, etc. i dont see that rhetoric has any

1302:

This hardly seems like a good reason, right? The argument here is that oral should be included because it's "important to stress that rhetoric belongs in the realm of oral expression." This seems like a circular argument to me. I'm arguing that rhetoric is the use of language to persuade - a

349:

Why this strange reluctance about the word "language"? All rhetoric is linguistic in some way. Pictures are language too. Shouldn't we change "usually through language" to "through language". And "any symbolic system etc." to just either "any symbolic system" or just "any language"? I mean, all

1241:

I agree with this statement, and I think this more complex reading of Plato should be worked in to this portion of the article. This could also use a citation (i.e. some works that complicate the traditional reading of Plato as antirhetorical or arhetorical).I'm going to put something on this

1197:

Expand the contemporary Rhetoric section. Discuss linguistic turn and the theories that are related. Especially a discussion of persona as described by Black, McGee and Wander. A discussion of Burke and post-modern rhetoric could be necessary as well. Maybe even a discussion of Gorgias and its

1175:

Beland has added the POV Check box because he apparently believes that the "Analysis of contemporary rhetoric" is not NPOV. I'd be interested in Beland's reasoning here; it seems to me that the article in question is itself NPOV, merely doing an analysis in the classical style. If no-one can

1136:

Maybe I missed it but the article appears to lack any discussion of how the term rhetoric is used in modern speech, especially with regard to political speech. When speaking of a politicians rhetoric one usually is describing his language as elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually

1791:

Like everything else, words decay, deteriorate, degenerate. The article claims that "Rhetoric is the art of using language to communicate effectively." The essence of rhetoric is thus supposed to be merely communicative language. However, the word is now ambiguous because it has more than one

1344:

UC Berkeley is one of the first Universities to dedicate an entire department to the study of rhetoric (go to the site: rhetoric.berkeley.edu). I am very fortunate to be enrolled in it (third year), and I have to say that there is a huge discrepancy between classical rhetoric and contemporary

738:

I think there is a fundamental flaw in the first part of the article stating that rhetoric is oral communication. I think that rhetoric can be applied to communication in general when using any and all means in each particular case to persuade. A picture can be a very persuasive, and body can

452:

for now? Then, if you like, we can discuss how the two articles relate to each other. BTW...I had an undergraduate minor in the subject, so I know just enough to be dangerous! But I *was* a member of a championship debate team, so perhaps that's worth somthing? Your input would be greatly

418:

Rhetoric in its modern usage is a broader term which can cover written composition as well as the spoken word (indeed, 'spoken' is implied in ancient rhetoric). By the way, I'm a little concerned about the phrasing on public speaking about 'every speech has to be earned' or some such. I get

1289:

While I would agree that at certain times (Ancient Greece, for instance) rhetoric has been defined as "oral persuasion," I really have to question the word "oral" in the first line of this article. Entire subsets of rhetorical study are based on textual persuasion. Contemporary rhetorical

1826:.) People have subsequently used the word to designate other concepts, though. Like so many other words, it now has a meaning that is different from its original sense. It now means deceptive speech, the very opposite of communicative language. The article should emphasize this corruption. 1038:

As for moving the history elsewhere, I think it's a good idea. I think that the way to write a non-historical article is to cover all areas, but have a link saying that there has been disagreement throughout history as to what should be included, and link to the History of hetoric page.

1019:

For now, I think the historical approach is fine; a more extensive section dealing with the parts of rhetoric would still need to be linked to the history, for the simple reason that concepts of what is included/excluded within the field (rhetoric) have changed over time.

1238:: "The above is the propogation of a bad--oversimplified--reading. Socrates is not simply Plato's mouthpiece! He's a character! In reading the dialogues, and especially Phaedrus, Symposium, Republic, pay attention not only to what Socrates says, but also to what he does." 1150:

has in "modern" times -- all times are modern until they're not -- as you can see from any post*modern college catalogue. And many words are used as pejoratives whose primary meanings are simply descriptive. For instance, the way that post-modernists used the term

1049:

The irony of course is that Rhetoric as a discipline has been wrestling with the notion of being purely historical. Ironically, the debate that is indelibly linked to this idea is neutrality in criticism, which rhetorical theory scholars would reject completely.

680:

Also, you mentioned that you would like to explore definitions of rhetoric in this piece. Maybe the best place to start is with something along the lines of Aristotle or James Kinneavy. I sometimes tell my students that rhetoric is what is created when a

1604:

I do not consider myself qualified to edit this article - I looked it up because I wanted to know what 'Rhetoric' actually meant, but I am afraid that I didn't find the entry very helpful. At risk of labouring the point I reproduce the first para. below:

993:

happy to discuss in due course). I'm not one to write an article combining the two, though. I don't know all the history -- only the Roman and some of the Greek. I'm just one of the few Ciceronians left. -- Praetorbrutus praetorbrutus@yahoo.com

635:

take up a Sophist-like view are fantical skeptics. Reminds me of an old quote: *googles* Oh! How ironic! I never knew the quote came from Plato! "Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something." --

251:

persuading an audience." Q: "Thanks, Knowledge. I think I'll read more on what you have to say about the subject, including its history, origins, and many varied meanings over time." A: "No problem, dude. Always here to help."

582:, 449B: "Socrates: Would you be willing then, Gorgias, to continue the discussion as we are now doing , by way of question and answer , and to put off to another occasion the kind of long continuous speech that Polus began?") 1211:

comply with wikipedia's 32KB guidline. Right now the article is excessively academic and uninspired in its structure, more a haphazard list of facts than a fabricated article; information is too dense and featureless.

255:

i understand what you mean. but, of course, the problem is that a pat definition for a tradition that has been around since the 5thC BC risks some kind of brute reduction. any chance youve seen this passage from the

1420:

nietzsche was a philologist. and then a philosopher, of a kind. a lot of rhetoricians have seen his "truth and lies in a nonmoral sense," for instance, as highly consonant with sophistic thinking about language and

1345:

rhetoric (which although emerges in the mid 20th century, really has its place following post-structuralist/anti-foundationalist thinkers like Foucault and Derrida. It also does have its non-continental folk, like

813:

I doubt that the Richard M. Weaver who wrote on rhetoric is the hand shaker linked to this page. That Weaver could not have gotten past the secret service to shake President Carters hand since he died in 1963.

1506:

1250:

878:

and it seems to me that Plato would be more fond of Buddhist rhetoric than Aristotle's :) I don't consider myself learned enough to edit the page as it is, so I guess this is a request that someone do.

304:

in the introduction to that document, there is this line that calls attention to the problem: "For better or worse, rhetoric is an example of what philosopher W. B. Gallie calls an 'essentially contested

1760:

beginning of western civilization, (5th century BC, Athens), it is bound to have gone through some changes over the millenia. here are some good sources on the history of rhetoric, if youre interested:

1319:

651:

1434:

those who call these people "rhetoricians" are a little like those who called georgia o'keefe a "feminist" because her flower paintings looked to them like bold statements of women's power and pride.

441:

College professor. Who else gets paid to talk even if the audience is not entirely willing? And no, 'rhetoric' is certainly one of the fields of which I know enough to know that I know nothing! --

529:

be via a brief description of Quintilian's "Institutes" followed by the scholastic reformations of Petrus Ramus. Steve Swope (M.A. 1982, Rhetoric & Communication, University of Pittsburgh)

967:

The article is somewhat heavily tilted toward the history of rhetoric. Most of this content should be moved to history of rhetoric, with a new article on rhetoric that is largely conceptual.

1550:"Writ large" is a figure of speech that contains a minimum of communicative value. The Sophists used such devices when trying to make an impression. The tradition survives today in academia. 296:

in case you dont believe me about the challenges of coming up with some pat definition, you might check out this amazing compendium of definitions of rhetoric, spanning 6thC BC to 2006:

1573:"Every aspect of human life and thought that depends on the articulation and communication of meaning can be said to involve elements of the rhetorical." (3rd paragraph under Rhetoric) 1533:(emphasis mine). What is this supposed to mean, "writ large"? Is it just a typo? I can't figure out from the context of the paragraph nor the section on modern rhetoric further down. 145:

That was a very clear nutshell. The current article doesn't have anything like that (not in the opening anyway) and wouldn't benefit from a clear modern definition being added.

1635:

An opening paragraph which gave a concise definition ( if possible) followed by a few sentences which clearly addressed the questions above (or similar) would really help.

1585:

Rhetorical Concerns, or something to that effect...I mean, really, 7,000 words? No one wants to slog through all of that to get to some salient and necessary point.

767:

page, as well as the individual pages of various figures. Would anyone object to removing the list (at least the items that are figures of speech) at the end of

1801: 1057:

I agree that the McLuhan stuff should be removed. More importantly, Ong (McLuhan's protege) should be supplemented by a more recent (and less biased) source.

874:

I find that this page is sadly lacking (as is the litterature about rhetoric in general) in a view on eastern rhetoric. I found this page very interesting:

1303:

newspaper editorial, an academic book, a television show, a picture...all of these can be included under rhetoric. Does anyone have thoughts on this?

1626:

What about, say, the Gettysburg address? Was it Rhetoric when the address was delivered, and, if so, is the transcript of the address also Rhetoric?

938:, I added the corrected link to the main page. But someone still needs to expand that section on Knowledge (possibly based on the article listed). 1772:

Ong, W. J. (2004). Ramus, method, and the decay of dialogue : from the art of discourse to the art of reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1482: 1083: 998: 972: 913: 884: 849: 819: 788: 718: 613: 534: 478: 213: 1096: 897: 751:

I hope you don't mind me adding a few people to your list. Hopefully, I will find the time to start adding more information to some of them.

1486: 926: 226: 1011: 491: 461:

Well, I see the point is moot now that someone has seen fit to totally remove the Public Speaking article. Any idea who did that? :(

1528:

While classical rhetoric trained speakers to be effective persuaders in public forums and institutions like courtrooms and assemblies,

1137:

vacuous. Thus it serves as a pejorative term. I think this should be mentioned in the article but I'm not sure where best to put it. --

1687: 626: 547: 1353:. I REALLY REALLY want someone to help revise the portion on modern/contemporary rhetoric. There is a lot of work to be done there. 832: 152: 985: 1299:"I've reintroduced "oral" in the definition as it's important to stress that rhetoric belongs in the realm of oral expression. 1293:"Rhetoric (from Greek ῥήτωρ, rhêtôr, orator, teacher) is the art or technique of persuasion through the use of oral language." 1581:

theorists--many of whom pop up in the notes without much discourse as to their influence on the subject within the main text.

862: 189: 1296:

A few edits back, I removed the word "oral" from this sentence. Tito4000 reintroduced the word "oral" with this reasoning:

525:, 2nd place, 1985, Oration, Alaska state high school debate & forensics tournament. (My debate partner won 1st place.) 1357:

contemporary rhetoric can be gigantic and overwhelming on its own; and as it remains now, it is fractured and incomplete.

801: 731: 423:

to give speeches. I have to earn the right to be listened to, I suppose. It sounds too much like a self-help manual. --

1035:

Understanding Media, he lost the battle with his publishers over writing style, so I'd hesitate to judge him on that one.

502:

be an article titled "rhetoric" in any case. This is a very important topic for understanding a lot of Western culture.

1725:, page 119, editor John Dillon wrote about Hippias' use of dialectic for persuasion: "There is also extant by him a 411:. Rhetoric is an archic term which usually has somewhat negative connotations now. Should the articles be merged? 276:

this seems to me to be a reasonable (and true) description that could inform the approach here on the rhetoric page.

38: 1389: 1092: 893: 1490: 922: 222: 487: 1691: 1164:

The word has always had its baggage as a pejorative. Including alternative meanings is a job for wiktionary.

1007: 622: 555: 543: 392: 334: 66: 828: 387:

Would it be more efficient if some sections of the article are updated to include present use of Rhetoric?

156: 1088: 889: 1766:

Kennedy, G. A. (1994). A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

918: 218: 1025: 1003: 483: 372:. Normally, just make the change and provide your reasoning here (but not now that I'm arguing it :) ). 355: 727: 618: 539: 1176:

provide any reasoning in 5 days, I'll talk it over with Beland and see if we can't get this removed.

824: 1683: 1385: 981: 953: 949: 177: 148: 1641: 238: 1775: 1538: 1447: 1366: 1220: 752: 575: 442: 424: 316: 281: 115: 1235: 1831: 1806: 1779: 1769:

Murphy, J. J. (1983). A Synoptic history of classical rhetoric. Davis, Calif.: Hermagoras Press.

1739: 1708: 1660: 1555: 1511: 1451: 1370: 1324: 1306: 1255: 1204: 1058: 858: 740: 713:) or whether it is merely a tool for expressing knowledge from other fields. (Karen M. Kuralt) 656: 587: 579: 388: 330: 320: 297: 285: 185: 123: 1763:

Conley, T. M. (1994). Rhetoric in the European tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1526:

To somewhat follow up on this, in the second paragraph in the intro, the second sentence reads,

797: 1290:

scholarship deals with both oral and written language. Currently, the first sentence reads:

1811: 1588:

Please accept my apology if I come across too crabby--I sometimes do when I am being bold!

772: 764: 462: 454: 435: 412: 208:

Who and what should (and shouldn't) be included in a general overview of the subject, etc.

875: 1156: 977: 948:

If interested in Eastern rhetoric you may wish to see the notes on Chinese Rhetoric below

470: 449: 408: 311:

persuasion. Source: John D. Ramage, Rhetoric: A User’s Guide. New York: Pearson, 2006. 1."

554:"Public Speaking" is one of the five parts of Rhetoric, that is, it belongs to Delivery. 505:

There are other synonyms for "public speaking," however ("rhetoric" isn't one of them):

1534: 1350: 1216: 1177: 1165: 1122: 1051: 1040: 939: 379: 99: 85: 1655:

is dialectic (question and answer) that is employed as rhetoric (no answer expected).

1121:

Specify. There is as yet insufficient data in your question for a meaningful answer.--

434:

you to write one article to cover them both then! (smile) May I ask your occupation?

407:

I was under the impression that most of what is discussed in this article falls under

1827: 1735: 1656: 1551: 1507: 1320: 1276: 1259: 1251: 1242:

person's talk page asking them to rewrite the section. If they don't do it, I will.

854: 652: 636: 583: 563: 469:

It's still there! - you capitalized the 'Speaking', though, so the link won't work.

237:? What about including a link to hermeneutic authors such as Gadamer and Habermas? -- 181: 119: 47: 17: 739:

language can as well, and in which case both can be considered rhetoric. comment by

1591: 1346: 793: 780: 723: 510: 1623:

Is a good powerpoint presentation Rhetoric? A Church sermon? A political speech?

562:

You people sure do appeal to ethos by flashing your credentials. Just kidding. --

329:

this article could use a section about the 19th, 20th or 21st century rhetoric —

1818:…has the double sense of 'orator' and 'teacher of oratory'." He thereby equates 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1792:

meaning. The original meaning was oratory, as can be seen in its Greek root. O

1138: 257: 1835: 1783: 1743: 1717: 1695: 1664: 1644: 1594: 1559: 1542: 1515: 1494: 1455: 1393: 1374: 1328: 1309: 1279: 1224: 1207: 1180: 1159: 1141: 1125: 1107: 1061: 1043: 1028: 957: 942: 660: 639: 591: 566: 396: 382: 358: 338: 324: 289: 241: 193: 160: 127: 102: 95: 88: 350:

symbolic systems are a form of language, at least that's the consensus in

1713: 776: 768: 522: 1629:

How does it differ from other forms of written or verbal communication?

1215:

stands, I can't quickly see if these are from yesterday or 2 years ago.

779:

a bit more compact, and eliminate the redundancy that currently exists.

1104: 935: 518: 514: 369: 1730: 689:(and we discuss some examples of "skills and strategies") to shape a 506: 1734:

a conversation between two or more people who respond to each other.

1194:

Move the McLuhan stuff to the McLuhan page, and link there from here

1706:

Not true. Both rhetoric and dialectic are attempts to persuade. In

498:

Re the question whether there should be two articles: there should

905: 642:

i have this as homework n i dont know what in the world this means

1530:

contemporary rhetoric investigates human discourse writ large.

298:

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~tkinney/pdf/handouts/definitions.pdf

25: 1680:

a simpler definition of rhetoric is "the art of persuasion"

354:

linguistics department. ;) Is this edit ok with everybody?

876:

http://homepage.mac.com/tehart/asian_rhetoric_frame.html

1610:

which include the analysis of written and visual texts.

904:

edit: sorry, the link doesn't seem to work. Just go to

1756:

very non-rhetorical way of approaching the problem.

844:

Nice so far. Burke and Cassirer both mentioned too!

448:

What do you think about my finishing the article on

173:Rhetoric is the social creation of shared meaning. 1804:, in a footnote, page 22, to his translation of 94:Are you sure you're not confusing rhetoric with 1198:implications on contemporary rhetorical theory. 376:to a lay person, then post the suggestion here. 233:Can we add an Ernesto Grassi page or reference 1600:This article does not tell me what rhetoric is 80:someone trying to argue in a discussion) was 8: 114:person, that speaker is said to be asking a 75:Greek Rhetoric != Public Speech (= Oratory) 1751:the dictionary will not solve this problem 1617:what is the 'aforementioned definition'? 685:(a speaker, writer, or other artist) uses 1234:The following was added under "Plato" by 84:used as a synonym for orator (=speaker). 1230:Plato vs. Socrates and Socrates' actions 763:I have recently edited and expanded the 1146:JA: That is not the only meaning that 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1620:Is it teaching? Oration? persuasion? 1577:musical, pictorial, or conceptual). 7: 1340:Rhetoric (especially at UC Berkeley) 1103:I moved the sentence to a footnote. 672:Rhetoric and the Masses, Definitions 574:that speaker is said to be asking a 1614:OK, but, what is Rhetoric, Really? 1191:Expand the Eastern Rhetoric section 1632:what is a 'Rhetorical question' ? 908:and click your way from there... 24: 1132:The term rhetoric in modern usage 29: 934:In accordance with Knowledge's 906:http://homepage.mac.com/tehart/ 1784:16:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 1456:00:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC) 1394:17:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 1375:17:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 1: 1729:, which is not an oration — 1225:03:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1181:03:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 1108:13:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 1073:McLuhan Dissertation - an ad? 1062:20:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC) 1044:04:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 943:03:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 558:06:08, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) Lisa 383:03:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 242:22:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 103:03:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 1645:22:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 1310:03:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 1280:22:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 1208:19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC) 958:05:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC) 397:01:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 339:00:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 325:17:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC) 290:16:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC) 194:18:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC) 1696:03:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC) 1160:14:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 1142:14:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 1117:how does this system work? 640:21:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 567:21:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 89:13:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 1855: 1543:00:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 1477:Yes but what is RHETORIC? 1275:Add rhetorical triple/ts? 1099:) 19:15, 15 February 2006. 1665:10:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1516:10:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1329:10:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1260:10:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1126:15:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC) 1029:18:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC) 661:10:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 603:Applied Social Psychology 592:10:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 161:09:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC) 128:10:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 1836:14:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC) 1744:16:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC) 1595:22:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC) 1560:00:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 771:and having a pointer to 359:12:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 1495:02:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 775:? I think it will make 265:"Branches of philosophy 1229: 1186:Things that need doing 235:Rhetoric As Philosophy 1485:comment was added by 687:skills and strategies 473:. --MichaelTinkler 42:of past discussions. 1569:Rhetoric and Meaning 1086:comment was added by 1001:comment was added by 975:comment was added by 916:comment was added by 887:comment was added by 865:) 21 September 2004. 852:comment was added by 822:comment was added by 791:comment was added by 721:comment was added by 616:comment was added by 537:comment was added by 481:comment was added by 216:comment was added by 1814:, wrote: "The word 1271:Rhetorical triple/t 1113:how does this work? 963:History of Rhetoric 900:) 18 November 2004. 804:) 21 February 2005. 783:21 February 2005. 701:, for a particular 697:, for a particular 576:rhetorical question 443:User:MichaelTinkler 425:User:MichaelTinkler 116:rhetorical question 1723:The Greek Sophists 1155:as a pejorative. 1014:) 29 October 2005. 929:) 13 January 2005. 835:) 24 January 2004. 705:, in a particular 556:DigitalMedievalist 494:) 15 January 2002. 430:Ah! Perhaps I can 368:1. Knowledge says 1721:of rhetoric. (In 1686:comment added by 1498: 1100: 1015: 989: 930: 901: 866: 836: 805: 743:16 January, 2007 735: 693:for a particular 630: 551: 495: 230: 197: 180:comment added by 163: 151:comment added by 72: 71: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1846: 1812:Penguin Classics 1698: 1480: 1079: 994: 988:) 21 March 2005. 968: 909: 880: 870:Eastern Rhetoric 845: 815: 784: 773:Figure of speech 765:Figure of speech 759:Figure of Speech 755:1 December 2003 714: 629:) 14 March 2003. 609: 550:) 18 April 2002. 530: 474: 457:15 January 2002 445:15 January 2002 438:14 January 2002 427:14 January 2002 415:14 January 2002 209: 206:Debate and such. 196: 174: 146: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1854: 1853: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1802:Walter Hamilton 1727:Trojan Dialogue 1681: 1602: 1571: 1499: 1481:—The preceding 1468: 1342: 1287: 1285:"oral language" 1273: 1232: 1188: 1173: 1134: 1115: 1089:134.173.160.162 1075: 965: 890:129.177.234.154 872: 842: 840:Burke, Cassirer 811: 761: 749: 674: 605: 471:Public speaking 465:15 January 2002 450:public speaking 409:Public speaking 405: 403:Public Speaking 347: 229:) 17 July 2001. 203: 175: 77: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1852: 1850: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1749: 1709:Gorgias, 493 C 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1601: 1598: 1570: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1487:63.229.221.191 1479: 1467: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1378: 1377: 1360: 1351:Stanley Cavell 1341: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1286: 1283: 1272: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1231: 1228: 1200: 1199: 1195: 1192: 1187: 1184: 1172: 1169: 1133: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1114: 1111: 1082:The preceding 1074: 1071: 1066: 1065: 1047: 1046: 1036: 1018: 997:The preceding 971:The preceding 964: 961: 946: 945: 919:80.202.105.243 912:The preceding 883:The preceding 871: 868: 848:The preceding 841: 838: 818:The preceding 810: 807: 787:The preceding 760: 757: 753:Radical edward 748: 745: 734:) 4 July 2003. 717:The preceding 673: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 644: 643: 612:The preceding 604: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 533:The preceding 477:The preceding 467: 466: 404: 401: 400: 399: 385: 377: 373: 366: 361:Martin Larsen 346: 343: 342: 341: 327: 313: 312: 307: 306: 301: 300: 293: 292: 278: 277: 273: 272: 267: 266: 262: 261: 219:142.177.68.xxx 212:The preceding 202: 199: 171: 170: 169: 168: 167: 166: 165: 164: 136: 135: 134: 133: 132: 131: 106: 105: 76: 73: 70: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1851: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1808: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1770: 1767: 1764: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1752: 1747: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1710: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1643: 1639: 1636: 1633: 1630: 1627: 1624: 1621: 1618: 1615: 1612: 1611: 1606: 1599: 1597: 1596: 1593: 1589: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1568: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1531: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1478: 1475: 1472: 1465: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1358: 1354: 1352: 1348: 1339: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1308: 1307:Jamesjbrownjr 1304: 1300: 1297: 1294: 1291: 1284: 1282: 1281: 1278: 1270: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1239: 1237: 1227: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1212: 1209: 1206: 1196: 1193: 1190: 1189: 1185: 1183: 1182: 1179: 1170: 1168: 1167: 1162: 1161: 1158: 1154: 1149: 1144: 1143: 1140: 1131: 1127: 1124: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1112: 1110: 1109: 1106: 1101: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1087: 1085: 1072: 1070: 1063: 1060: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1045: 1042: 1037: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1027: 1026:Theonemacduff 1021: 1016: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1004:Praetorbrutus 1002: 1000: 990: 987: 983: 979: 976: 974: 962: 960: 959: 955: 951: 944: 941: 937: 933: 932: 931: 928: 924: 920: 917: 915: 907: 902: 899: 895: 891: 888: 886: 877: 869: 867: 864: 860: 856: 853: 851: 839: 837: 834: 830: 826: 823: 821: 808: 806: 803: 799: 795: 792: 790: 782: 778: 774: 770: 766: 758: 756: 754: 746: 744: 742: 736: 733: 729: 725: 722: 720: 712: 708: 704: 700: 696: 692: 688: 684: 678: 671: 662: 658: 654: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 641: 638: 633: 632: 631: 628: 624: 620: 617: 615: 602: 593: 589: 585: 581: 577: 572: 571: 570: 569: 568: 565: 561: 560: 559: 557: 552: 549: 545: 541: 538: 536: 526: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 503: 501: 496: 493: 489: 485: 484:66.153.24.xxx 482: 480: 472: 464: 460: 459: 458: 456: 453:appreciated. 451: 446: 444: 439: 437: 433: 428: 426: 422: 416: 414: 410: 402: 398: 394: 390: 389:Simonebedjean 386: 384: 381: 378: 374: 371: 367: 365:A few things: 364: 363: 362: 360: 357: 356:129.177.48.51 353: 344: 340: 336: 332: 331:Simonebedjean 328: 326: 322: 318: 315: 314: 309: 308: 303: 302: 299: 295: 294: 291: 287: 283: 280: 279: 275: 274: 269: 268: 264: 263: 259: 254: 253: 252: 248: 244: 243: 240: 236: 231: 228: 224: 220: 217: 215: 207: 200: 198: 195: 191: 187: 183: 179: 162: 158: 154: 150: 144: 143: 142: 141: 140: 139: 138: 137: 129: 125: 121: 117: 112: 111: 110: 109: 108: 107: 104: 101: 97: 93: 92: 91: 90: 87: 83: 74: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 18:Talk:Rhetoric 1823: 1819: 1815: 1805: 1797: 1793: 1774: 1771: 1768: 1765: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1748: 1726: 1722: 1707: 1705: 1688:72.64.102.86 1640: 1637: 1634: 1631: 1628: 1625: 1622: 1619: 1616: 1613: 1608: 1607: 1603: 1590: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1572: 1529: 1527: 1525: 1476: 1473: 1469: 1359: 1355: 1347:J. L. Austin 1343: 1305: 1301: 1298: 1295: 1292: 1288: 1274: 1240: 1236:71.202.38.77 1233: 1213: 1201: 1174: 1163: 1152: 1147: 1145: 1135: 1116: 1102: 1081: 1076: 1067: 1048: 1022: 1017: 996: 991: 970: 966: 947: 911: 903: 882: 873: 847: 843: 817: 812: 809:Wrong Weaver 786: 762: 750: 737: 716: 710: 706: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 679: 675: 619:12.249.74.67 611: 606: 553: 540:63.185.15.80 532: 527: 511:speechmaking 504: 499: 497: 476: 468: 447: 440: 431: 429: 420: 417: 406: 351: 348: 249: 245: 234: 232: 211: 205: 204: 176:— Preceding 172: 81: 78: 60: 43: 37: 1682:—Preceding 825:66.8.237.20 463:F. Lee Horn 455:F. Lee Horn 436:F. Lee Horn 413:F. Lee Horn 153:85.17.94.25 147:—Preceding 36:This is an 1716:admits to 1421:discourse. 1157:Jon Awbrey 978:Mikedelsol 950:Dreamlogic 500:definitely 305:concept.'" 258:philosophy 1746:Lestrade 1718:Callicles 1642:Jforrest1 1535:Zach99998 1466:Confusing 1217:Myles325a 1178:TimNelson 1171:POV Check 1166:jghitzert 1123:Piewalker 1052:jghitzert 1041:TimNelson 940:TimNelson 711:epistemic 380:TimNelson 239:Laetus007 201:Talk Page 100:TimNelson 96:dialectic 86:Jhartmann 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 1838:Lestrade 1828:Lestrade 1776:Stacyted 1736:Lestrade 1714:Socrates 1684:unsigned 1667:Lestrade 1657:Lestrade 1638:Thanks! 1562:Lestrade 1552:Lestrade 1518:Lestrade 1508:Lestrade 1483:unsigned 1448:Stacyted 1367:Stacyted 1331:Lestrade 1321:Lestrade 1277:Calineed 1262:Lestrade 1252:Lestrade 1148:rhetoric 1097:contribs 1084:unsigned 1012:contribs 999:unsigned 986:contribs 973:unsigned 927:contribs 914:unsigned 898:contribs 885:unsigned 863:contribs 855:Wblakesx 850:unsigned 833:contribs 820:unsigned 802:contribs 789:unsigned 777:Rhetoric 769:Rhetoric 732:contribs 719:unsigned 703:occasion 699:audience 663:Lestrade 653:Lestrade 637:Cyberman 627:contribs 614:unsigned 594:Lestrade 584:Lestrade 564:Cyberman 548:contribs 535:unsigned 492:contribs 479:unsigned 432:persuade 345:Language 317:Stacyted 282:Stacyted 227:contribs 214:unsigned 190:contribs 182:Binerman 178:unsigned 149:unsigned 130:Lestrade 120:Lestrade 1807:Gorgias 1592:Poetess 1078:-Laura 936:Be bold 794:Dpaking 781:Dpaking 724:Requiem 707:context 695:purpose 691:message 580:Gorgias 578:. (cf. 519:oration 515:oratory 370:Be bold 39:archive 1824:orator 1820:rhetor 1816:rhetor 1798:rhetor 1731:Nestor 1386:csloat 1205:Rahgsu 1153:modern 1059:M8lton 747:People 741:Amgood 683:rhetor 507:speech 271:ones." 260:page?: 1822:with 1800:ic. ( 1794:rator 1139:Cab88 521:. -- 98:??? 16:< 1832:talk 1810:for 1796:y = 1780:talk 1740:talk 1692:talk 1661:talk 1556:talk 1539:talk 1512:talk 1491:talk 1452:talk 1390:talk 1371:talk 1349:and 1325:talk 1256:talk 1221:talk 1093:talk 1008:talk 982:talk 954:talk 923:talk 894:talk 859:talk 829:talk 798:talk 728:talk 657:talk 623:talk 588:talk 544:talk 488:talk 421:paid 393:talk 335:talk 321:talk 286:talk 223:talk 186:talk 157:talk 124:talk 523:LMS 82:not 1834:) 1782:) 1742:) 1712:, 1694:) 1663:) 1558:) 1541:) 1514:) 1493:) 1454:) 1392:) 1373:) 1327:) 1258:) 1223:) 1105:Hu 1095:• 1010:• 984:• 956:) 925:• 896:• 861:• 831:• 800:• 730:• 659:) 625:• 590:) 546:• 517:, 513:, 509:, 490:• 395:) 352:my 337:) 323:) 288:) 225:• 192:) 188:• 159:) 126:) 1830:( 1778:( 1738:( 1690:( 1659:( 1554:( 1537:( 1510:( 1497:. 1489:( 1450:( 1388:( 1369:( 1323:( 1254:( 1219:( 1091:( 1080:— 1064:. 1006:( 995:— 980:( 969:— 952:( 921:( 910:— 892:( 881:— 857:( 846:— 827:( 816:— 796:( 785:— 726:( 715:— 655:( 621:( 610:— 586:( 542:( 531:— 486:( 475:— 391:( 333:( 319:( 284:( 221:( 210:— 184:( 155:( 122:( 118:. 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index