RhetorClick - User contributions [en]

Ferdinand de Saussure

2012-04-17T09:33:17Z

Elisabeth:

== Biography ==
Ferdinand De Saussure (1857-1907) was a Swiss linguist. He studied linguistics at the University of Leipzig (1876) then later studied in Berlin. From 1881-1891, after receiving his doctorate from Leipzig, he taught in Paris, and in 1891, he accepted a professorship at Geneva. He taught at the University of Geneva for the rest of his career. In 1907, he started teaching General Linguistics. while a professor, Saussure developed the field of semiology, a field directly associated with Saussure's linguistic theories.

At Geneva, Saussure taught a general linguistics course (cours de linguistique generale). Students' class notes from this course were combined as records of the monumental discoveries that took place during Saussure's lessons in that course. The Cours de linguistique generale was translated into Japanese, German, Russian, Spanish, English, Polish, Hungarian, Portuguese, and Italian.

Although internationally acclaimed, Saussure has received some criticism from certain semioticians for his ideas. He differentiates between linguistics and semiology. He says "Language is a system of signs that express ideas, and is therefore comparable to a system of writing, the alphabet of the deaf-mutes, symbolic rites, polite formulas, military signals, etc. But it is the most important of these sysems (...). Linguistics is only a part of the general science of semiology; the laws discovered by semiology will be applicable to linguistics and the latter will circumscribe a well-defined area within the mass of anthropological facts" (Krampen 63). In "Ferdinand de Saussure and the Development of Semiology," Martin Krampen argues that Saussure's critics most often just misunderstood his whole viewpoint by failing to read all of his work and make connections between his various theories (63). Krampen also summarizes well Saussure's understanding of the difference between parole (human speaking activity) and langue (language): "...in the concrete activity of speech an abstract system, language, expresses itself" (Krampen 65).

One argument against Saussure's argument that language is completely arbitrary is the existence of onamatopoeia, a particular instance in which language is not arbitrary but logically formed based on characteristics (sound) of the actual signified.

Saussure was monumental in that he proposed a structuralist approach to language and the origin of language. His approach removed the individual as creator of meaning and focused on the structure of language and thought, rather as what creates meaning and informs the individual. In "Landmarks in Linguistic Thought," Harris contrasts Saussure's revolutionary approach with that of the classical philosophers: "[Saussure] is the first thinker to issue a radical challenge to the notion that had been prevalent in the Western tradition from Plato onwards; namely, that the core of any language comprises an inventory of names designating things, persons, properties and events already given to human understanding in advance of language" (Harris 190). In an age when science was beginning to be regarded as the source of Truth, Saussure sought scientific answers to his questions about thought and language. "The theoretical task for general linguistics, as Saussure saw it, was to find an alternative set of assumptions on which it would be possible, at last, to erect a genuine science of language" (Harris 190).

== Notable Quotes ==

The following excerpt from Saussure's lecture on general linguistics explains the underlying thought process and assumptions upon which Saussure based his structuralist, parole/langue theory of semiology.

"In itself, thought is like a swirling cloud, where no shape is intrinsically determiate. No ideas are established in advance, and nothing is distinct, before the introduction of linguistic structure.

But do sounds, which lie outside this nebulous world of thought, in themselves constitute entities established in advance? No more than ideas do. The substance of sound is no more fixed or rigid than that of thought. It does not offer a ready-made mould, with shapes that thought must inevitably conform to. It is a malleable material which can be fashioned into separate parts in order to supply the signals which thought has need of. so we can envisage the linguistic phenomenon in its entirety--the language, that is--as a series of adjoining subdivisions simultaneously imprinted both on the plane of vague, amorphous thought, and on the equally featurless plane of sound...

Just as it is impossible to take a pair of scissors and cut one side of paper without at the same time cutting the other, so it is impossible in a language to isolate sound from thought or thought from sound. To separate the to for theoretical purposes takes us into either ure psychology or pure phonetics, not linguistics.

Linguistics, then, operates along this margin, where sound and thought meet. The contact between them gives rise to a form, not a substance."

-From Cours de linguistique generale: 155-7

== Article Summaries ==

[[Saussure, Ferdinand de "Nature of the Linguistic Sign"]]

== Additional Works/Publications ==

==== Books ====

==== Articles/Essays ====

==== Websites ====
: [http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/ Semiotics for Beginners]

: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_Semiotics_of_Social_Networking.jpg Semiotics of Social Networking]

: [http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/722/07/ Purdue OWL: Structuralism and Semiotics]

== Further Readings ==
Krampen, Martin. "Ferdinand de Saussure and the Development of Semiology." Classics of Semiotics. ed. Krampen, Martin, Klaus Oehler, Roland Posner, Thomas Sebeok, Thure von Uexkull. New York: Wolf Jobst Siedler Verlag, 1981. Print.

Harris, Roy and Talbot Taylor. Landmarks in Linguistic Thought: The Western Tradition from Socrates to Saussure. New York: Roy Harris & Talbot J. Taylor, 1989. Print.

== Other Scholarly Views ==

==== Agreement ====

Those authors that agree with Saussure.

==== Opposition ====

Those authors that disagree with Saussure.

== References ==

== External Links ==

Ferdinand de Saussure

2012-04-12T17:12:19Z

Elisabeth: /* Article Summaries */

Saussure, Ferdinand de "Nature of the Linguistic Sign"

2012-04-12T17:10:22Z

Elisabeth:

==Abstract==

In “Nature of the Linguistic Sign,” [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] argues that a linguistic sign can be broken up into two parts: a concept (signified) and a sound-image (signifier). He points out how the sign is arbitrary and not based on an inherent relationship between the signified and signifier. He says the sign is both immutable—no one in a community can alter the language at will—and mutable—given enough time, social forces will cause shifts in language, though language is always inherited from the preceding period.

==Nature of the Linguistic Sign==

Saussure argues that the field of linguistics should be divided into two branches: synchronic and diachronic. He forms this belief by reasoning that symbolic language essentially consists of the signifier and the signified which, together, are the sign. The signifier is the sound-image (the verbally or internally spoken word) and it exists only in time because it belongs to the realm of thought. The signified, on the other hand, is the concept referred to by the sound-image being called to mind. The signified, then, as a “thing” that “is” exists regardless of time because it does not need to be spoken or visualized in order to exist. It continues existing whether it is being referred to or not. This is where Saussure’s concept of continuity enters into the study. The signified is continuous in that it does not change, while the signifier is continuous in that it does change over time. Saussure also refers to this as immutability (signs are abitrary and so they do not change) and mutability (the relationship between the signified and the signifier does shift over time - page ten).

Another way that Saussure describes the time-conscious and the time-less aspects of rhetoric is to name them, respectively, parole and langue. Parole is specifically the use of language. Langue refers specifically to the underlying structures of a language. Synchronic linguistics (the study of linguistics ignorant of time) deals with langue, while diachronic linguistics (the study of linguistics in light of time) deals with parole.

Saussure also distinguishes between the old way of analyzing language, which involved “naming” objects or concepts and did not differentiate between the nature of the name and the nature of the thing being named, and his new way of analyzing language, which is to consider both parole and langue, and not just parole. Saussure argues that there is a difference between the two and that acknowledging this difference matters to the field of linguistics because structure is responsible for meaning. Though the relationship between the signifier and signified may change, it will always fit into the preexisting structure of language.

==Possible Implications==

Could the ideas in Saussure’s “Nature of the Linguistic Sign” be compared to to Plato’s forms? The forms and the signifed are both the unchanging, eternal essence of a thing. Is it valid to claim similarities between Saussure and Plato in that they both look for the foundational structures that are behind everything?

Perhaps Plato was the first structuralist. He believed in “is” and that the world was highly organized according to structures, whether they be societal hierarchies or predetermined essences, everything that exists, to Plato, fits in with the laws of the universe. It could be argued that Saussure arrived at a similar philosophical conclusion and applied it to the study of language (which, by this time, many argue to be the definition of reality, so in a way, Saussure is not narrowing Plato’s philosophy, only qualifying it). This philosophy, known as structuralism, can be described as follows: people are not of themselves, and they do not generate original meaning and reality and symbols of themselves, but people and meaning and reality and symbols are produced out of structures. The structures are original, that which comes from them is not.

Ferdinand de Saussure

2012-04-12T17:01:52Z

Elisabeth:

Saussure, Ferdinand de "Nature of the Linguistic Sign"

2012-04-12T16:59:11Z

Elisabeth:

In “Nature of the Linguistic Sign,” [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] argues that a linguistic sign can be broken up into two parts: a concept (signified) and a sound-image (signifier). He points out how the sign is arbitrary and not based on an inherent relationship between the signified and signifier. He says the sign is both immutable—no one in a community can alter the language at will—and mutable—given enough time, social forces will cause shifts in language, though language is always inherited from the preceding period.

==Abstract==

In “Nature of the Linguistic Sign,” [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] argues that a linguistic sign can be broken up into two parts: a concept (signified) and a sound-image (signifier). He points out how the sign is arbitrary and not based on an inherent relationship between the signified and signifier. He says the sign is both immutable—no one in a community can alter the language at will—and mutable—given enough time, social forces will cause shifts in language, though language is always inherited from the preceding period.

==Nature of the Linguistic Sign==

Saussure argues that the field of linguistics should be divided into two branches: synchronic and diachronic. He forms this belief by reasoning that symbolic language essentially consists of the signifier and the signified which, together, are the sign. The signifier is the sound-image (the verbally or internally spoken word) and it exists only in time because it belongs to the realm of thought. The signified, on the other hand, is the concept referred to by the sound-image being called to mind. The signified, then, as a “thing” that “is” exists regardless of time because it does not need to be spoken or visualized in order to exist. It continues existing whether it is being referred to or not. This is where Saussure’s concept of continuity enters into the study. The signified is continuous in that it does not change, while the signifier is continuous in that it does change over time. Saussure also refers to this as immutability (signs are abitrary and so they do not change) and mutability (the relationship between the signified and the signifier does shift over time - page ten).

Another way that Saussure describes the time-conscious and the time-less aspects of rhetoric is to name them, respectively, parole and langue. Parole is specifically the use of language. Langue refers specifically to the underlying structures of a language. Synchronic linguistics (the study of linguistics ignorant of time) deals with langue, while diachronic linguistics (the study of linguistics in light of time) deals with parole.

Saussure also distinguishes between the old way of analyzing language, which involved “naming” objects or concepts and did not differentiate between the nature of the name and the nature of the thing being named, and his new way of analyzing language, which is to consider both parole and langue, and not just parole. Saussure argues that there is a difference between the two and that acknowledging this difference matters to the field of linguistics because structure is responsible for meaning. Though the relationship between the signifier and signified may change, it will always fit into the preexisting structure of language.

==Possible Implications==

Could the ideas in Saussure’s “Nature of the Linguistic Sign” be compared to to Plato’s forms? The forms and the signifed are both the unchanging, eternal essence of a thing. Is it valid to claim similarities between Saussure and Plato in that they both look for the foundational structures that are behind everything?

Perhaps Plato was the first structuralist. He believed in “is” and that the world was highly organized according to structures, whether they be societal hierarchies or predetermined essences, everything that exists, to Plato, fits in with the laws of the universe. It could be argued that Saussure arrived at a similar philosophical conclusion and applied it to the study of language (which, by this time, many argue to be the definition of reality, so in a way, Saussure is not narrowing Plato’s philosophy, only qualifying it). This philosophy, known as structuralism, can be described as follows: people are not of themselves, and they do not generate original meaning and reality and symbols of themselves, but people and meaning and reality and symbols are produced out of structures. The structures are original, that which comes from them is not.

"Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure

2012-04-12T16:53:31Z

Elisabeth: /* Nature of the Linguistic Sign */

"Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure

2012-04-12T16:31:03Z

Elisabeth:

==Abstract==

In “Nature of the Linguistic Sign,” [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] argues that a linguistic sign can be broken up into two parts: a concept (signified) and a sound-image (signifier). He points out how the sign is arbitrary and not based on an inherent relationship between the signified and signifier. He says the sign is both immutable—no one in a community can alter the language at will—and mutable—given enough time, social forces will cause shifts in language, though language is always inherited from the preceding period.

==Nature of the Linguistic Sign==

Saussure argues that the field of linguistics should be divided into two branches: synchronic and diachronic. He forms this belief by reasoning that symbolic language essentially consists of the signifier and the signified which, together, are the sign. The signifier is the sound-image (the verbally or internally spoken word) and it exists only in time because it belongs to the realm of thought. The signified, on the other hand, is the concept referred to by the sound-image being called to mind. The signified, then, as a “thing” that “is” exists regardless of time because it does not need to be spoken or visualized in order to exist. It continues existing whether it is being referred to or not. This is where Saussure’s concept of continuity enters into the study. The signified is continuous in that it does not change, while the signifier is continuous in that it does change over time. Saussure also refers to this as immutability (signs are abitrary and so they do not change) and mutability (the relationship between the signified and the signifier does shift over time - page ten).

Another way that Saussure describes the time-conscious and the time-less aspects of rhetoric is to name them, respectively, parole and langue. Parole is specifically the use of language. Langue refers specifically to the underlying structures of a language. Synchronic linguistics (the study of linguistics ignorant of time) deals with langue, while diachronic linguistics (the study of linguistics in light of time) deals with parole.

Saussure also distinguishes between the old way of analyzing language, which involved “naming” objects or concepts and did not differentiate between the nature of the name and the nature of the thing being named, and his new way of analyzing language, which is to consider both parole and langue, and not just parole. Saussure argues that there is a difference between the two and that acknowledging this difference matters to the field of linguistics because structure is responsible for meaning. Though the relationship between the signifier and signified may change, it will always fit into the preexisting structure of language.

The ideas in Saussure’s “Nature of the Linguistic Sign” are easiest for me to understand when I compare them to Plato’s forms. The forms and the signifed are both the unchanging, eternal essence of a thing. Saussure and Plato are very similar in that they both look for the foundational structures that are behind everything.

Perhaps Plato was the first structuralist. He believed in “is” and that the world was highly organized according to structures, whether they be societal hierarchies or predetermined essences, everything that exists, to Plato, fits in with the laws of the universe. Saussure rediscovers Plato’s philosophy and applies it to the study of language (which, by this time, many argue to be the definition of reality, so in a way, Saussure is not narrowing Plato’s philosophy, only qualifying it). People are not of themselves, and they do not generate original meaning and reality and symbols of themselves, but people and meaning and reality and symbols are produced out of structures. The structures are original, that which comes from them is not.

"Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure

2012-04-12T16:29:20Z

Elisabeth:

In “Nature of the Linguistic Sign,” [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] argues that a linguistic sign can be broken up into two parts: a concept (signified) and a sound-image (signifier). He points out how the sign is arbitrary and not based on an inherent relationship between the signified and signifier. He says the sign is both immutable—no one in a community can alter the language at will—and mutable—given enough time, social forces will cause shifts in language, though language is always inherited from the preceding period.

==Abstract==

Saussure argues that the field of linguistics should be divided into two branches: synchronic and diachronic. He forms this belief by reasoning that symbolic language essentially consists of the signifier and the signified which, together, are the sign. The signifier is the sound-image (the verbally or internally spoken word) and it exists only in time because it belongs to the realm of thought. The signified, on the other hand, is the concept referred to by the sound-image being called to mind. The signified, then, as a “thing” that “is” exists regardless of time because it does not need to be spoken or visualized in order to exist. It continues existing whether it is being referred to or not. This is where Saussure’s concept of continuity enters into the study. The signified is continuous in that it does not change, while the signifier is continuous in that it does change over time. Saussure also refers to this as immutability (signs are abitrary and so they do not change) and mutability (the relationship between the signified and the signifier does shift over time - page ten).

Another way that Saussure describes the time-conscious and the time-less aspects of rhetoric is to name them, respectively, parole and langue. Parole is specifically the use of language. Langue refers specifically to the underlying structures of a language. Synchronic linguistics (the study of linguistics ignorant of time) deals with langue, while diachronic linguistics (the study of linguistics in light of time) deals with parole.

Saussure also distinguishes between the old way of analyzing language, which involved “naming” objects or concepts and did not differentiate between the nature of the name and the nature of the thing being named, and his new way of analyzing language, which is to consider both parole and langue, and not just parole. Saussure argues that there is a difference between the two and that acknowledging this difference matters to the field of linguistics because structure is responsible for meaning. Though the relationship between the signifier and signified may change, it will always fit into the preexisting structure of language.

The ideas in Saussure’s “Nature of the Linguistic Sign” are easiest for me to understand when I compare them to Plato’s forms. The forms and the signifed are both the unchanging, eternal essence of a thing. Saussure and Plato are very similar in that they both look for the foundational structures that are behind everything.

Perhaps Plato was the first structuralist. He believed in “is” and that the world was highly organized according to structures, whether they be societal hierarchies or predetermined essences, everything that exists, to Plato, fits in with the laws of the universe. Saussure rediscovers Plato’s philosophy and applies it to the study of language (which, by this time, many argue to be the definition of reality, so in a way, Saussure is not narrowing Plato’s philosophy, only qualifying it). People are not of themselves, and they do not generate original meaning and reality and symbols of themselves, but people and meaning and reality and symbols are produced out of structures. The structures are original, that which comes from them is not.

"Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure

2012-04-12T16:27:56Z

Elisabeth:

In “Nature of the Linguistic Sign,” [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] argues that a linguistic sign can be broken up into two parts: a concept (signified) and a sound-image (signifier). He points out how the sign is arbitrary and not based on an inherent relationship between the signified and signifier. He says the sign is both immutable—no one in a community can alter the language at will—and mutable—given enough time, social forces will cause shifts in language, though language is always inherited from the preceding period.

Saussure argues that the field of linguistics should be divided into two branches: synchronic and diachronic. He forms this belief by reasoning that symbolic language essentially consists of the signifier and the signified which, together, are the sign. The signifier is the sound-image (the verbally or internally spoken word) and it exists only in time because it belongs to the realm of thought. The signified, on the other hand, is the concept referred to by the sound-image being called to mind. The signified, then, as a “thing” that “is” exists regardless of time because it does not need to be spoken or visualized in order to exist. It continues existing whether it is being referred to or not. This is where Saussure’s concept of continuity enters into the study. The signified is continuous in that it does not change, while the signifier is continuous in that it does change over time. Saussure also refers to this as immutability (signs are abitrary and so they do not change) and mutability (the relationship between the signified and the signifier does shift over time - page ten).

Another way that Saussure describes the time-conscious and the time-less aspects of rhetoric is to name them, respectively, parole and langue. Parole is specifically the use of language. Langue refers specifically to the underlying structures of a language. Synchronic linguistics (the study of linguistics ignorant of time) deals with langue, while diachronic linguistics (the study of linguistics in light of time) deals with parole.

Saussure also distinguishes between the old way of analyzing language, which involved “naming” objects or concepts and did not differentiate between the nature of the name and the nature of the thing being named, and his new way of analyzing language, which is to consider both parole and langue, and not just parole. Saussure argues that there is a difference between the two and that acknowledging this difference matters to the field of linguistics because structure is responsible for meaning. Though the relationship between the signifier and signified may change, it will always fit into the preexisting structure of language.

The ideas in Saussure’s “Nature of the Linguistic Sign” are easiest for me to understand when I compare them to Plato’s forms. The forms and the signifed are both the unchanging, eternal essence of a thing. Saussure and Plato are very similar in that they both look for the foundational structures that are behind everything.

Perhaps Plato was the first structuralist. He believed in “is” and that the world was highly organized according to structures, whether they be societal hierarchies or predetermined essences, everything that exists, to Plato, fits in with the laws of the universe. Saussure rediscovers Plato’s philosophy and applies it to the study of language (which, by this time, many argue to be the definition of reality, so in a way, Saussure is not narrowing Plato’s philosophy, only qualifying it). People are not of themselves, and they do not generate original meaning and reality and symbols of themselves, but people and meaning and reality and symbols are produced out of structures. The structures are original, that which comes from them is not.

"Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure

2012-04-12T07:01:19Z

Elisabeth:

In “Nature of the Linguistic Sign,” [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] argues that a linguistic sign can be broken up into two parts: a concept (signified) and a sound-image (signifier). He points out how the sign is arbitrary and not based on an inherent relationship between the signified and signifier. He says the sign is both immutable—no one in a community can alter the language at will—and mutable—given enough time, social forces will cause shifts in language, though language is always inherited from the preceding period.

Saussure argues that the field of linguistics should be divided into two branches: synchronic and diachronic. He forms this belief by reasoning that symbolic language essentially consists of the signifier and the signified which, together, are the sign. The signifier is the sound-image (the verbally or internally spoken word) and it exists only in time because it belongs to the realm of thought. The signified, on the other hand, is the concept referred to by the sound-image being called to mind. The signified, then, as a “thing” that “is” exists regardless of time because it does not need to be spoken or visualized in order to exist. It continues existing whether it is being referred to or not. This is where Saussure’s concept of continuity enters into the study. The signified is continuous in that it does not change, while the signifier is continuous in that it does change over time. Saussure also refers to this as immutability (signs are abitrary and so they do not change) and mutability (the relationship between the signified and the signifier does shift over time - page ten).
Another way that Saussure describes the time-conscious and the time-less aspects of rhetoric is to name them, respectively, parole and langue. Parole is specifically the use of language. Langue refers specifically to the underlying structures of a language. Synchronic linguistics (the study of linguistics ignorant of time) deals with langue, while diachronic linguistics (the study of linguistics in light of time) deals with parole.
Saussure also distinguishes between the old way of analyzing language, which involved “naming” objects or concepts and did not differentiate between the nature of the name and the nature of the thing being named, and his new way of analyzing language, which is to consider both parole and langue, and not just parole. Saussure argues that there is a difference between the two and that acknowledging this difference matters to the field of linguistics because structure is responsible for meaning. Though the relationship between the signifier and signified may change, it will always fit into the preexisting structure of language.
The ideas in Saussure’s “Nature of the Linguistic Sign” are easiest for me to understand when I compare them to Plato’s forms. The forms and the signifed are both the unchanging, eternal essence of a thing. Saussure and Plato are very similar in that they both look for the foundational structures that are behind everything.
Perhaps Plato was the first structuralist. He believed in “is” and that the world was highly organized according to structures, whether they be societal hierarchies or predetermined essences, everything that exists, to Plato, fits in with the laws of the universe. Saussure rediscovers Plato’s philosophy and applies it to the study of language (which, by this time, many argue to be the definition of reality, so in a way, Saussure is not narrowing Plato’s philosophy, only qualifying it). People are not of themselves, and they do not generate original meaning and reality and symbols of themselves, but people and meaning and reality and symbols are produced out of structures. The structures are original, that which comes from them is not.

Burke, Kenneth "Definition of Man"

2012-02-16T07:18:44Z

Elisabeth: /* Related Articles */

Definition of Man outlines Burke’s philosophical exploration of the essence of man--what makes humans human. He believes that we are fundamentally different from animals and in this essay he attempts to pinpoint exactly what it is that makes us different in nature from animals (he concedes that we are animals, but argues that our mode of being is essentially distinct from that of other animals).

He begins the essay describing the relationship between definition and meaning--Does definition inspire meaning or meaning, definition? His argument is that definition inspires meaning. Definition is “prior to the observations it summarizes” (Burke, 40). By pointing this out at the beginning of his essay, Burke emphasizes straightaway his belief in the power of language to shape reality.

In the following sections of the essay, Burke develops the idea that language is prior to meaning in the context of his overall argument that language--symbolic communication--is what sets man apart from all other beings. Man’s ability to conceptualize and, more importantly, to know that he has conceptualized, to be capable of “thinking about thought,” is what makes him different from the wren who, by accident (according to Burke), discovered how to force her overgrown young from the nest but could not reflect on the fact that she had just done so.

In addition to being a philosophical exploration, Definition of Man serves as political and religious commentary. Burke’s assertion that humans are capable of higher thought and of contemplating the negative necessarily leads to religious questions. If humans are capable of higher thought, then what is higher thought, and where does it come from? And where does “nothing” come from? Burke argues that the existence of “yes” and “no,” of “something” and “nothing” make a strong argument for the existence of God and Devil. Definition of Man is political commentary in that Burke attempts to answer questions about why we make war. His short poem at the end and various comments throughout the essay demonstrate is disgust and awe at the possibility of nuclear war.

In “Definition of Man,” [[Kenneth Burke]] takes a fairly dark view of human beings and their use of language. He defines man, using five clauses, as “Man is a symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal/ inventor of the negative (or moralized by the negative)/ separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making/ goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order)/ and rotten with perfection” (53-54). At the beginning, Burke clearly states that his definition is subject to debate and modification. Burke asserts that our symbols-systems are what allow humans to survive and innovate; however, these same systems can also lead to destruction, thus introducing a duality of symbols or language, a main theme in this article. Continuing with the idea of duality, Burke introduces the clause regarding humans as the inventor of the negative, as he claims that nothing in nature is negative and that the negative was constructed by the symbol-systems. He continues to reference language used in the discussion of morality, i.e. the “Thou shall-not.” He believes in stating this negative phrase brings both positive and negative ideas. Then, Burke argues that our symbol-systems construct social networks and norms, etc., that separate us from our natural instincts; in other words, we regard natural occurrences or “things” as negative as a result of language. Furthermore, when he says “rotten with perfection,” Burke does not mean that humans are perfect. He means that humans strive to fulfill their perfect, already formulated ideas. This can lead to political scapegoating and a number of other sad occurrences.

== Related Articles ==

* [[Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"]] Bryant attempts to add focus to Burke's broad definition of rhetoric.

Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"

2012-02-16T07:18:11Z

Elisabeth: /* Related Articles */

[[Donald C. Bryant]]’s purpose is to discuss the “functions and scope which any system will embrace” (268). Scholars hold many conflicting definitions of rhetoric, making it difficult to actually analyze; even Bryant himself seems to espouse multiple views at once. The widespread modern definition of rhetoric is the use of empty language - “language used to deceive, without honest intention behind it” (269) - but rhetoric can also mean ''any'' communication. Bryant writes, "I am almost forced to the position that whatever we do or say or write, or even think, in explanation of anything, or in support, or in extenuation, or in despite of anything, evinces rhetorical symptoms" (267). However, he does note that certain symbols such as pictures without context and traffic lights are not rhetorical. He understands rhetoric to be the “rationale of informative and suasory discourse” (271).

Bryant argues that the study of rhetoric is essential for both rhetoricians and their audiences in order to prevent tyranny. He writes, "If enlightened and responsible leaders with rhetorical knowledge and skill are not trained and nurtured, irresponsible demagogues will monopolize the power of rhetoric, will have things to themselves" (291). If we do not train leaders to be rhetorically responsible, they will exploit it, and if we do not have at least a basic knowledge of rhetoric, we can easily be taken advantage of.

Bryant also talks about rhetoric being unavoidable, and that it helps validate the “relations in the idea-audience-speaker situation” (282). The function of rhetoric is to adjust ideas to people and people to the ideas; this has to be done without modifying/distorting the ideas, and the audiences must be prepared “through the mitigation of their prejudices, ignorance, and irrelevant sets of mind without being dispossessed of their judgments” (282). Rhetoric, therefore, works alongside psychological and logical studies and uses imagination and emotion to support reason. Rhetoric is “the organizer of all such for the wielding of public opinion” (285). Rhetoric is used in inquiry and in education (we should teach people rhetoric). Regarding poetry, Sir Philip Sidney claimed poetry can’t lie because it only presents. Rhetoric, however, presents and affirms, so it is characteristic (297).

== Bryant's Definitions of Rhetoric ==

For various definitions and wordings Bryant proposes, see the following pages:
* 267
* 269
* 271
* 274
* 276
* 277
* 281
* 282
* 285
* 292
* 297

== Related Articles ==

* [[Weaver, Richard "The Cultural Role of Rhetoric]] touches briefly on semanticism, a theory in direct conflict with Bryant's view on exploitation of rhetoric, which any attempt at persuasion using rhetoric is dishonest.
* [[Burke, Kenneth "Definition of Man"]] Bryant’s “Function and Scope of Rhetoric” is largely a response to Burke’s “rhetoric is everything and everything is rhetoric” approach to New Rhetoric (find "New Rhetoric" in the [[Glossary]]).

Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"

2012-02-16T07:16:17Z

Elisabeth: /* Related Articles */

Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"

2012-02-16T07:15:18Z

Elisabeth: /* Related Articles */

[[Donald C. Bryant]]’s purpose is to discuss the “functions and scope which any system will embrace” (268). Scholars hold many conflicting definitions of rhetoric, making it difficult to actually analyze; even Bryant himself seems to espouse multiple views at once. The widespread modern definition of rhetoric is the use of empty language - “language used to deceive, without honest intention behind it” (269) - but rhetoric can also mean ''any'' communication. Bryant writes, "I am almost forced to the position that whatever we do or say or write, or even think, in explanation of anything, or in support, or in extenuation, or in despite of anything, evinces rhetorical symptoms" (267). However, he does note that certain symbols such as pictures without context and traffic lights are not rhetorical. He understands rhetoric to be the “rationale of informative and suasory discourse” (271).

Bryant argues that the study of rhetoric is essential for both rhetoricians and their audiences in order to prevent tyranny. He writes, "If enlightened and responsible leaders with rhetorical knowledge and skill are not trained and nurtured, irresponsible demagogues will monopolize the power of rhetoric, will have things to themselves" (291). If we do not train leaders to be rhetorically responsible, they will exploit it, and if we do not have at least a basic knowledge of rhetoric, we can easily be taken advantage of.

Bryant also talks about rhetoric being unavoidable, and that it helps validate the “relations in the idea-audience-speaker situation” (282). The function of rhetoric is to adjust ideas to people and people to the ideas; this has to be done without modifying/distorting the ideas, and the audiences must be prepared “through the mitigation of their prejudices, ignorance, and irrelevant sets of mind without being dispossessed of their judgments” (282). Rhetoric, therefore, works alongside psychological and logical studies and uses imagination and emotion to support reason. Rhetoric is “the organizer of all such for the wielding of public opinion” (285). Rhetoric is used in inquiry and in education (we should teach people rhetoric). Regarding poetry, Sir Philip Sidney claimed poetry can’t lie because it only presents. Rhetoric, however, presents and affirms, so it is characteristic (297).

== Bryant's Definitions of Rhetoric ==

For various definitions and wordings Bryant proposes, see the following pages:
* 267
* 269
* 271
* 274
* 276
* 277
* 281
* 282
* 285
* 292
* 297

== Related Articles ==

* [[Weaver, Richard "The Cultural Role of Rhetoric]] touches briefly on semanticism, a theory in direct conflict with Bryant's view on exploitation of rhetoric, which any attempt at persuasion using rhetoric is dishonest.
* [[Burke, Kenneth "Definition of Man"]] Bryant’s “Function and Scope of Rhetoric” is largely a response to Burke’s ideas on the New Rhetoric, the “rhetoric is everything and everything is rhetoric” approach.

Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"

2012-02-16T07:11:27Z

Elisabeth: /* Related Articles */

[[Donald C. Bryant]]’s purpose is to discuss the “functions and scope which any system will embrace” (268). Scholars hold many conflicting definitions of rhetoric, making it difficult to actually analyze; even Bryant himself seems to espouse multiple views at once. The widespread modern definition of rhetoric is the use of empty language - “language used to deceive, without honest intention behind it” (269) - but rhetoric can also mean ''any'' communication. Bryant writes, "I am almost forced to the position that whatever we do or say or write, or even think, in explanation of anything, or in support, or in extenuation, or in despite of anything, evinces rhetorical symptoms" (267). However, he does note that certain symbols such as pictures without context and traffic lights are not rhetorical. He understands rhetoric to be the “rationale of informative and suasory discourse” (271).

Bryant argues that the study of rhetoric is essential for both rhetoricians and their audiences in order to prevent tyranny. He writes, "If enlightened and responsible leaders with rhetorical knowledge and skill are not trained and nurtured, irresponsible demagogues will monopolize the power of rhetoric, will have things to themselves" (291). If we do not train leaders to be rhetorically responsible, they will exploit it, and if we do not have at least a basic knowledge of rhetoric, we can easily be taken advantage of.

Bryant also talks about rhetoric being unavoidable, and that it helps validate the “relations in the idea-audience-speaker situation” (282). The function of rhetoric is to adjust ideas to people and people to the ideas; this has to be done without modifying/distorting the ideas, and the audiences must be prepared “through the mitigation of their prejudices, ignorance, and irrelevant sets of mind without being dispossessed of their judgments” (282). Rhetoric, therefore, works alongside psychological and logical studies and uses imagination and emotion to support reason. Rhetoric is “the organizer of all such for the wielding of public opinion” (285). Rhetoric is used in inquiry and in education (we should teach people rhetoric). Regarding poetry, Sir Philip Sidney claimed poetry can’t lie because it only presents. Rhetoric, however, presents and affirms, so it is characteristic (297).

== Bryant's Definitions of Rhetoric ==

For various definitions and wordings Bryant proposes, see the following pages:
* 267
* 269
* 271
* 274
* 276
* 277
* 281
* 282
* 285
* 292
* 297

== Related Articles ==

* [[Weaver, Richard "The Cultural Role of Rhetoric]] touches briefly on semanticism, a theory in direct conflict with Bryant's view on exploitation of rhetoric, which any attempt at persuasion using rhetoric is dishonest.
* [[Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"]] Bryant attempts to add focus to Burke's broad definition of rhetoric.

Burke, Kenneth "Definition of Man"

2012-02-16T07:10:56Z

Elisabeth: /* Related Articles */

Definition of Man outlines Burke’s philosophical exploration of the essence of man--what makes humans human. He believes that we are fundamentally different from animals and in this essay he attempts to pinpoint exactly what it is that makes us different in nature from animals (he concedes that we are animals, but argues that our mode of being is essentially distinct from that of other animals).

He begins the essay describing the relationship between definition and meaning--Does definition inspire meaning or meaning, definition? His argument is that definition inspires meaning. Definition is “prior to the observations it summarizes” (Burke, 40). By pointing this out at the beginning of his essay, Burke emphasizes straightaway his belief in the power of language to shape reality.

In the following sections of the essay, Burke develops the idea that language is prior to meaning in the context of his overall argument that language--symbolic communication--is what sets man apart from all other beings. Man’s ability to conceptualize and, more importantly, to know that he has conceptualized, to be capable of “thinking about thought,” is what makes him different from the wren who, by accident (according to Burke), discovered how to force her overgrown young from the nest but could not reflect on the fact that she had just done so.

In addition to being a philosophical exploration, Definition of Man serves as political and religious commentary. Burke’s assertion that humans are capable of higher thought and of contemplating the negative necessarily leads to religious questions. If humans are capable of higher thought, then what is higher thought, and where does it come from? And where does “nothing” come from? Burke argues that the existence of “yes” and “no,” of “something” and “nothing” make a strong argument for the existence of God and Devil. Definition of Man is political commentary in that Burke attempts to answer questions about why we make war. His short poem at the end and various comments throughout the essay demonstrate is disgust and awe at the possibility of nuclear war.

In “Definition of Man,” [[Kenneth Burke]] takes a fairly dark view of human beings and their use of language. He defines man, using five clauses, as “Man is a symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal/ inventor of the negative (or moralized by the negative)/ separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making/ goaded by the spirit of hierarchy (or moved by the sense of order)/ and rotten with perfection” (53-54). At the beginning, Burke clearly states that his definition is subject to debate and modification. Burke asserts that our symbols-systems are what allow humans to survive and innovate; however, these same systems can also lead to destruction, thus introducing a duality of symbols or language, a main theme in this article. Continuing with the idea of duality, Burke introduces the clause regarding humans as the inventor of the negative, as he claims that nothing in nature is negative and that the negative was constructed by the symbol-systems. He continues to reference language used in the discussion of morality, i.e. the “Thou shall-not.” He believes in stating this negative phrase brings both positive and negative ideas. Then, Burke argues that our symbol-systems construct social networks and norms, etc., that separate us from our natural instincts; in other words, we regard natural occurrences or “things” as negative as a result of language. Furthermore, when he says “rotten with perfection,” Burke does not mean that humans are perfect. He means that humans strive to fulfill their perfect, already formulated ideas. This can lead to political scapegoating and a number of other sad occurrences.

== Related Articles ==

[[Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"]] Bryant attempts to add focus to Burke's broad definition of rhetoric.

Burke, Kenneth "Definition of Man"

2012-02-16T07:06:15Z

Elisabeth:

Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"

2012-02-16T07:05:11Z

Elisabeth: /* Bryant's Definitions of Rhetoric */

Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"

2012-02-16T07:04:53Z

Elisabeth: /* Bryant's Definitions of Rhetoric */

[[Donald C. Bryant]]’s purpose is to discuss the “functions and scope which any system will embrace” (268). Scholars hold many conflicting definitions of rhetoric, making it difficult to actually analyze; even Bryant himself seems to espouse multiple views at once. The widespread modern definition of rhetoric is the use of empty language - “language used to deceive, without honest intention behind it” (269) - but rhetoric can also mean ''any'' communication. Bryant writes, "I am almost forced to the position that whatever we do or say or write, or even think, in explanation of anything, or in support, or in extenuation, or in despite of anything, evinces rhetorical symptoms" (267). However, he does note that certain symbols such as pictures without context and traffic lights are not rhetorical. He understands rhetoric to be the “rationale of informative and suasory discourse” (271).

Bryant argues that the study of rhetoric is essential for both rhetoricians and their audiences in order to prevent tyranny. He writes, "If enlightened and responsible leaders with rhetorical knowledge and skill are not trained and nurtured, irresponsible demagogues will monopolize the power of rhetoric, will have things to themselves" (291). If we do not train leaders to be rhetorically responsible, they will exploit it, and if we do not have at least a basic knowledge of rhetoric, we can easily be taken advantage of.

Bryant also talks about rhetoric being unavoidable, and that it helps validate the “relations in the idea-audience-speaker situation” (282). The function of rhetoric is to adjust ideas to people and people to the ideas; this has to be done without modifying/distorting the ideas, and the audiences must be prepared “through the mitigation of their prejudices, ignorance, and irrelevant sets of mind without being dispossessed of their judgments” (282). Rhetoric, therefore, works alongside psychological and logical studies and uses imagination and emotion to support reason. Rhetoric is “the organizer of all such for the wielding of public opinion” (285). Rhetoric is used in inquiry and in education (we should teach people rhetoric). Regarding poetry, Sir Philip Sidney claimed poetry can’t lie because it only presents. Rhetoric, however, presents and affirms, so it is characteristic (297).

== Bryant's Definitions of Rhetoric ==

--

For various definitions and wordings Bryant proposes, see the following pages:
* 267
* 269
* 271
* 274
* 276
* 277
* 281
* 282
* 285
* 292
* 297

== Related Articles ==

* [[Weaver, Richard "The Cultural Role of Rhetoric]] touches briefly on semanticism, a theory in direct conflict with Bryant's view on exploitation of rhetoric, which any attempt at persuasion using rhetoric is dishonest.

Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope"

2012-02-16T07:04:33Z

Elisabeth: /* Bryant's Definitions of Rhetoric */

[[Donald C. Bryant]]’s purpose is to discuss the “functions and scope which any system will embrace” (268). Scholars hold many conflicting definitions of rhetoric, making it difficult to actually analyze; even Bryant himself seems to espouse multiple views at once. The widespread modern definition of rhetoric is the use of empty language - “language used to deceive, without honest intention behind it” (269) - but rhetoric can also mean ''any'' communication. Bryant writes, "I am almost forced to the position that whatever we do or say or write, or even think, in explanation of anything, or in support, or in extenuation, or in despite of anything, evinces rhetorical symptoms" (267). However, he does note that certain symbols such as pictures without context and traffic lights are not rhetorical. He understands rhetoric to be the “rationale of informative and suasory discourse” (271).

Bryant argues that the study of rhetoric is essential for both rhetoricians and their audiences in order to prevent tyranny. He writes, "If enlightened and responsible leaders with rhetorical knowledge and skill are not trained and nurtured, irresponsible demagogues will monopolize the power of rhetoric, will have things to themselves" (291). If we do not train leaders to be rhetorically responsible, they will exploit it, and if we do not have at least a basic knowledge of rhetoric, we can easily be taken advantage of.

Bryant also talks about rhetoric being unavoidable, and that it helps validate the “relations in the idea-audience-speaker situation” (282). The function of rhetoric is to adjust ideas to people and people to the ideas; this has to be done without modifying/distorting the ideas, and the audiences must be prepared “through the mitigation of their prejudices, ignorance, and irrelevant sets of mind without being dispossessed of their judgments” (282). Rhetoric, therefore, works alongside psychological and logical studies and uses imagination and emotion to support reason. Rhetoric is “the organizer of all such for the wielding of public opinion” (285). Rhetoric is used in inquiry and in education (we should teach people rhetoric). Regarding poetry, Sir Philip Sidney claimed poetry can’t lie because it only presents. Rhetoric, however, presents and affirms, so it is characteristic (297).

== Bryant's Definitions of Rhetoric ==

----

For various definitions and wordings Bryant proposes, see the following pages:
* 267
* 269
* 271
* 274
* 276
* 277
* 281
* 282
* 285
* 292
* 297

== Related Articles ==

* [[Weaver, Richard "The Cultural Role of Rhetoric]] touches briefly on semanticism, a theory in direct conflict with Bryant's view on exploitation of rhetoric, which any attempt at persuasion using rhetoric is dishonest.

Burke, Kenneth "Definition of Man"

2012-02-16T06:54:45Z

Elisabeth: