Ehninger, Douglas "On Systems of Rhetoric" - Revision history

RyanMitchell at 03:17, 17 April 2012

2012-04-17T03:17:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:17, 17 April 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	In "On Systems of Rhetoric," Ehninger argues that it is ~~beneficial~~ to ~~view different periods~~ of ~~rhetoric~~ as ~~different~~ systems of rhetoric~~. He breaks these down into three periods from which different systems arose: Classical Rhetoric~~, ~~“New” Rhetoric, and Contemporary Rhetoric. He argues~~ that ~~“systems~~ of rhetoric ~~arise out of a felt need and are shaped~~ in ~~part by~~ the ~~intellectual~~ and social ~~environment in which the need exists” (327)~~. ~~Therefore~~, ~~each new system sought to look beyond what~~ the ~~previous had, but in doing so, often ignored~~ the ~~important~~ and ~~necessary aspects~~ of ~~the previous. For example, Ehninger states~~, the ~~system~~ of ~~“New” Rhetoric focused on~~ the ~~psychological and the rhetor-~~audience ~~relationship~~, ~~but de-emphasized~~ the ~~importance~~ of ~~grammar in rhetoric that Classical Rhetoric pointed out~~. ~~Contemporary Rhetoric did a similar thing by emphasizing the sociological side of~~ rhetoric and ~~de-emphasizing~~ the ~~audience relationship~~ and ~~grammar~~. Ehninger ~~argues that~~ the study of ~~systems of~~ rhetoric is beneficial because “it directs attention to the dangers and difficulties involved in constructing a rhetoric. And surely this information is helpful both in evaluating systems of the past and in building systems to meet the changing needs of the future” (328).	+	In his essay, On Systems of Rhetoric, Douglas Ehninger argues that the only way to study rhetoric productively and thoroughly is to conceive of it as various, reactive systems. Ehninger propels the contextual nature of rhetoric, maintaining that rhetorics of different ages focus attention on issues pertinent to that particular age. To show the systematic nature of rhetoric, Ehninger simplifies popular theories from three pivotal moments in rhetorical history – the classical or Greek rhetoric, the “new” rhetoric of eighteenth-century England, and the social rhetoric of today. Respectively, the three periods are characterized by an emphasis on the grammar and components of oratory, the emotional responses of the audience, and the understanding of language as a concept-making tool. By viewing rhetoric as systems and connecting these systems with generalized summations, the modern rhetor can better prescribe a course for the field and navigate interpersonal communication, both on a grand and minute scale. Ultimately, Ehninger calls for historical approach to the study of reactionary communication as exemplified through rhetoric.

Meg Seeger at 16:55, 12 April 2012

2012-04-12T16:55:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:55, 12 April 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	In ~~his article~~, Ehninger argues that it is beneficial to view different periods of rhetoric as different systems of rhetoric. He breaks these down into three periods from which different systems arose: Classical Rhetoric, “New” Rhetoric, and Contemporary Rhetoric. He argues that “systems of rhetoric arise out of a felt need and are shaped in part by the intellectual and social environment in which the need exists” (327). Therefore, each new system sought to look beyond what the previous had, but in doing so, often ignored the important and necessary aspects of the previous. For example, Ehninger states, the system of “New” Rhetoric focused on the psychological and the rhetor-audience relationship, but de-emphasized the importance of grammar in rhetoric that Classical Rhetoric pointed out. Contemporary Rhetoric did a similar thing by emphasizing the sociological side of rhetoric and de-emphasizing the audience relationship and grammar. Ehninger argues that the study of systems of rhetoric is beneficial because “it directs attention to the dangers and difficulties involved in constructing a rhetoric. And surely this information is helpful both in evaluating systems of the past and in building systems to meet the changing needs of the future” (328).	+	In "On Systems of Rhetoric," Ehninger argues that it is beneficial to view different periods of rhetoric as different systems of rhetoric. He breaks these down into three periods from which different systems arose: Classical Rhetoric, “New” Rhetoric, and Contemporary Rhetoric. He argues that “systems of rhetoric arise out of a felt need and are shaped in part by the intellectual and social environment in which the need exists” (327). Therefore, each new system sought to look beyond what the previous had, but in doing so, often ignored the important and necessary aspects of the previous. For example, Ehninger states, the system of “New” Rhetoric focused on the psychological and the rhetor-audience relationship, but de-emphasized the importance of grammar in rhetoric that Classical Rhetoric pointed out. Contemporary Rhetoric did a similar thing by emphasizing the sociological side of rhetoric and de-emphasizing the audience relationship and grammar. Ehninger argues that the study of systems of rhetoric is beneficial because “it directs attention to the dangers and difficulties involved in constructing a rhetoric. And surely this information is helpful both in evaluating systems of the past and in building systems to meet the changing needs of the future” (328).

Rebecca B: Created page with "In his article, Ehninger argues that it is beneficial to view different periods of rhetoric as different systems of rhetoric. He breaks these down into three periods from which ..."

2012-04-05T17:58:36Z

Created page with "In his article, Ehninger argues that it is beneficial to view different periods of rhetoric as different systems of rhetoric. He breaks these down into three periods from which ..."

New page

In his article, Ehninger argues that it is beneficial to view different periods of rhetoric as different systems of rhetoric. He breaks these down into three periods from which different systems arose: Classical Rhetoric, “New” Rhetoric, and Contemporary Rhetoric. He argues that “systems of rhetoric arise out of a felt need and are shaped in part by the intellectual and social environment in which the need exists” (327). Therefore, each new system sought to look beyond what the previous had, but in doing so, often ignored the important and necessary aspects of the previous. For example, Ehninger states, the system of “New” Rhetoric focused on the psychological and the rhetor-audience relationship, but de-emphasized the importance of grammar in rhetoric that Classical Rhetoric pointed out. Contemporary Rhetoric did a similar thing by emphasizing the sociological side of rhetoric and de-emphasizing the audience relationship and grammar. Ehninger argues that the study of systems of rhetoric is beneficial because “it directs attention to the dangers and difficulties involved in constructing a rhetoric. And surely this information is helpful both in evaluating systems of the past and in building systems to meet the changing needs of the future” (328).