RhetorClick - User contributions [en]

User:JenniferSchrauth

2011-04-19T09:55:13Z

JenniferSchrauth:

I am a senior at St. Edward's University majoring in English Writing and Rhetoric with an emphasis in Creative Writing. My primary area of interest is fiction, my secondary is poetry. I am an editor on ARETE, a student-run academic journal at St. Edward's and on Open Ear of the Universe, a creative journal published by Sigma Tau Delta, Southwestern.

My contributions to the wiki are as follows:
*I created the glossary page and am regular contributor and editor of that page
*I have contributed to the article summaries page
*I reformatted the articles summary page so that the article summaries page links to individual pages for each article.
*I added links in the individual article summaries to their respective authors
*I created the editing guidelines page
*I created the definitions of rhetoric page
*I consistently edit the pages I created for coherency of style and sentence-level details

Definitions of Rhetoric

2011-04-19T09:51:44Z

JenniferSchrauth: /* References */

This page will have definitions of rhetoric according to authors from our past and current theories courses. The authors are listed alphabetically by last name.

'''Bizzell, Patricia''': "Rhetoric is the study of the personal, social and historical elements in human discourse--how to recognize them, interpret them, and act on them, in terms both of situational context and of verbal style." 

'''Bryant, Donald C.''': "I take rhetoric to be the ''rationale of informative and suasory discourse''." "Rhetoric, or the rhetorical, is the function in human affairs which governs and gives direction to that creative activity, that process of critical analysis, that branch of learning, which address themselves to the whole phenomenom of the designed use of language for the promulgation of information, ideas, and attitudes." "We may say that the rhetorical function is the ''function of adjusting ideas to people and of people to ideas''." 

'''Burke, Kenneth''': "The key term for the 'new' rhetoric would be 'identification." 

'''Ehninger, Douglas''': "A rhetoric I define as an organized, consistent, coherent way of talking about practical discourse in any of its forms or modes." 

'''Fogarty, Daniel''': Rhetoric is "the science of recognizing the range of the meanings and of the functions of words, and the art of using and interpreting them in accordance with this recognition." 

'''Frye, Northrop''': Rhetoric is "the social aspect of the use of language." 

'''Halloran, Michael S.''': "The tradition of classical rhetoric, then, is defined principally by the image of the Orator as a cultural idea. He appears in Greece as the man who possesses ''arete'', in Rome as 'the good man skilled in speaking,' later as The Renaissance Man, and later still as the Enlightenment's 'man of reason'." 

'''Nichols, Marie Hochmuth''': Rhetoric is "the theory and the practice of the verbal mode of presenting judgment and choice, knowledge and feeling....It works in the area of the contingent, where alternatives are possible." 

'''Perelman, Chaim''': "Classical Rhetoric, the art of speaking well--that is, the art of speaking (or writing) persuasively--was concerned to study the discursive ways of acting upon an audience, with a view to winning or increasing its adherence to the theses that were presented to it for its endorsement." "For the ancients, rhetoric was the theory of persuasive discourse and included five parts: ''inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, and actio''." "The new rhetoric is a theory of argumentation....The part played by the audience in rhetoric is crucially important, because all argumentation, in aiming to persuade, must be adapted to the audience and, hence, based on beliefs accepted by the audience with such conviction that the rest of the discourse can be securely based upon it." 

'''Richards, I.A.''': Rhetoric "should be a study of misunderstanding and its remedies," "a persistent, systematic, detailed inquiry into how words work." 

'''Weaver, Richard''': Rhetoric is the "intellectual love of the Good," and "seeks to perfect men by showing them better versions of themselves." 

== References ==

*Breuch, Lee-Ann M. Kastman. "Post-Process 'Pedagogy'." ''Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader''. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana, Ill: National Council of Teachers of English, 2003. 116. Print.
*Bryant, Donald C. "Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope." ''Professing the New Rhetorics: A Sourcebook''. Ed. Theresa Enos and Stuart C. Brown. Boston, MA: Blair Press, 1994. 271, 282. Print.
*Ehninger, Douglas. "On Systems of Rhetoric." ''Professing the New Rhetorics: A Sourcebook''. Ed. Theresa Enos and Stuart C. Brown. Boston, MA: Blair Press, 1994. 319. Print.
*Fogarty, Daniel John. ''Roots for a New Rhetoric''. New York: Bureau of Publication; Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1959. Print.
*Frye, Northrop. ''The Well-Tempered Critic''. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1963. Print.
*Halloran, S. Michael. "On the End of Rhetoric, Classical and Modern." ''Professing the New Rhetorics: A Sourcebook''. Eds. Theresa Enos and Stuart C. Brown. Boston, MA: Blair Press, 1994. 333. Print.
*Nichols, Marie Hochmuth. ''Rhetoric and Criticism''. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1963. Print.
*Perelman, Chaim. "The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning." ''Professing the New Rhetorics: A Sourcebook''. Ed. Theresa Enos and Stuart C. Brown. Boston, MA: Blair Press, 1994. 146, 153, 158. Print.
*Perelman, Chaim. "Rhetoric and Philosophy." ''Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Invention in Writing''. Eds. Richard E. Young and Yameng Liu. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press, 1994. 51. Print.
*Richards, I.A. ''The Philosophy of Rhetoric''. New York: Oxford University Press, 1936. Print.
*Weaver, Richard M. ''The Ethics of Rhetoric''. Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1953. Print.

User:JenniferSchrauth

2011-04-12T22:06:48Z

JenniferSchrauth:

I am a senior at St. Edward's University majoring in English Writing and Rhetoric with an emphasis in Creative Writing. My primary area of interest is fiction, my secondary is poetry. I am an editor on ARETE, a student-run academic journal at St. Edward's and on Open Ear of the Universe, a creative journal published by Sigma Tau Delta, Southwestern.

My contributions to the wiki are as follows:
*I created the glossary page and am regular contributor and editor of that page.
*I have contributed to the articles summary page
*I reformatted the articles summary page so that the articles summaries page links to individual pages for each article.
*I added links in the individual article summaries to their respective authors
*I created the editing guidelines page

Glossary

2011-04-12T14:45:45Z

JenniferSchrauth: /* I */

This page is dedicated to key terms from the readings.

== A ==

*'''Affective Fallacy''': Wimsatt and Berdsley claimed that evaluating literature by the way it affects the reader is uselessly subjective. Again, literature should be evaluated through its use of language, not outside factors (see [["How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards]])
*'''Aleatoric''': according to chance (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Ambiguity''': Richards showed how under-examined ambiguities can lead to misinterpretation of an entire work (see [["How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards]])
*'''Animism''': according to Aristotle, all objects have souls (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Antistrophos''': counterpart, companion (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])

== B ==

*'''Bricolage''': (in art or literature) construction or creation from a diverse range of available things (see [[April 5 Class Notes]])

== C ==

*'''Chariot allegory''': Socrates compares the soul to chariot horses and their rider. He believes the soul (chariot rider) is immortal and consists of one good horse and one bad horse. The soul is in constant struggle balancing and choosing between the two horses. Through the good soul only, the chariot can make it to eternity or heaven. (Weaver [[February 15 Class Notes]])
*'''Classical Rhetori'''c: theory of persuasive discourse (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Close Reading''': Richards shifted the focus from general analysis to a meticulous, word-level method of interpretation, which has greatly influenced modern criticism. (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])

== D ==

*'''Death of the Author''': Roland Barthe's essay argues that the author must be disentangled from the text (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Dialectic''': two-sided dialogue, formal argumentation system, conversation [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Doxa''': social knowledge [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== E ==

*'''Emthymeme''': uses audience's assumptions, only use 1 premise [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Entelechy''': the actualization of form-giving cause as contrasted with potential existence. (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Episteme''': core, truths of the earth knowledge [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Ethos''': The persuasive appeal of one's character, especially how this character is established by means of speech or discourse. Ethotic appeals rely on the trustworthiness of the speaker or writer. Ethos is an effective appeal because when the audience believes that the speaker does not intend to do them harm, they are more likely to trust what is being said. (Persuasive appeals: see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Etymologically''' (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])

== F ==

== G ==

== H ==
*'''Hypertext''': Ted Nelson, who coined the term hypertext, defines it as non-sequential writing. "This means writing in which the logical connections between elements are primarily associative rather than syllogistic, as in conventional text" (Slatin 171). (Slatin [[March 22 Class Notes]])

== I ==

*'''Intentional Fallacy''': William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley asserted that the author's words, not his intent, should be studied. Richards argued that since an authors mind can never be known, we can only examine her words (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Interpretant''': how you perceive the representamen (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])
*'''Inter-Textual Variations''': On the inter-textual level, text is structured through alphanumeric cues (headings, numbers), spatial cues (horizontal and vertical distribution of text on a page) and graphic cues (bullets, arrows, lines on tables) (see [https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/alred/www/pdf/kostelnick-rhetoricoftext.pdf Rhetoric of Text]).
*'''Intra-Textual Variations''': local changes in typography, such as boldfacing, upper case, italics, etc (see [https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/alred/www/pdf/kostelnick-rhetoricoftext.pdf Rhetoric of Text]).
*'''Supra-Textual Structuring''': affects the document globally, with section titles, page headers, tabs, page size, orientation, the placement of extra-textual elements (e.g. data display and pictures), icons, page color, and various line, textures, and marks. Supra-textual cues create visual coherence among units in a document (see [https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/alred/www/pdf/kostelnick-rhetoricoftext.pdf Rhetoric of Text])

== J ==

== K ==

*'''Krisis''': point of judgment, moment of decision [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== L ==

*'''Logology''': study of language and symbols (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Logos''': the appeal to reason. Logical appeals attempt to persuade the audience using intellect. Most academic arguments rely mainly on logos. (Persuasive appeals: [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== M ==

== N ==

*'''New Criticism''': Richards' ideas helped establish this movement, which viewed texts as completely autonomous (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''New Rhetoric''': theory of argumentation (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Node''': Any object which is linked to another object (Slatin [[March 22 Class Notes]])

== O ==

*'''Object''': the action you take (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])

== P ==

*'''Paradeigma''': use of example or evidence to prove a point [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Pathos''': the appeal to emotion. When people accept a claim based on how it makes them feels=, they are acting on pathos. A majority of advertisements and arguments in the popular press rely heavily on pathetic appeals. Although the pathetic appeal can be manipulative, it is the cornerstone of moving people to action. (Persuasive appeals: [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Pisteis''': proofs, persuasive appeals (logos, ethos, pathos); artistic (logical, logos, nonlogical, ethos and pathos) and inartistic (tangible evidence) proofs [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Poeis''': fine arts [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Proofs''': Justification, reasoning, argumentation. (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])

== Q ==

== R ==

*'''Rationalism''': truth is not sensory, but intellectual and deductive. You only know thought through deductive reasoning. (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Representame'''n: what something represents to you personally (creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign) (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])
* Rhetoric: (see [[Definitions of Rhetoric]])

== S ==

*'''Signified''': concept in the mind (not a thing but the notion of a thing) ([["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]])
*'''Signifier''': the material (or physical form) of the sign ([["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]])
*'''Syllogism''': logical/deductive, conclusion resting on 2 premises (major, minor, conclusion) [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== T ==

*'''Techne''': art, craft ([["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Telos''': an ultimate end. (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Tropism''': growth toward or away from external stimulus (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])

== U ==

== V ==

== W ==

== X ==

== Y ==

== Z ==

Glossary

2011-04-12T14:44:49Z

JenniferSchrauth: /* I */

This page is dedicated to key terms from the readings.

== A ==

*'''Affective Fallacy''': Wimsatt and Berdsley claimed that evaluating literature by the way it affects the reader is uselessly subjective. Again, literature should be evaluated through its use of language, not outside factors (see [["How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards]])
*'''Aleatoric''': according to chance (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Ambiguity''': Richards showed how under-examined ambiguities can lead to misinterpretation of an entire work (see [["How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards]])
*'''Animism''': according to Aristotle, all objects have souls (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Antistrophos''': counterpart, companion (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])

== B ==

*'''Bricolage''': (in art or literature) construction or creation from a diverse range of available things (see [[April 5 Class Notes]])

== C ==

*'''Chariot allegory''': Socrates compares the soul to chariot horses and their rider. He believes the soul (chariot rider) is immortal and consists of one good horse and one bad horse. The soul is in constant struggle balancing and choosing between the two horses. Through the good soul only, the chariot can make it to eternity or heaven. (Weaver [[February 15 Class Notes]])
*'''Classical Rhetori'''c: theory of persuasive discourse (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Close Reading''': Richards shifted the focus from general analysis to a meticulous, word-level method of interpretation, which has greatly influenced modern criticism. (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])

== D ==

*'''Death of the Author''': Roland Barthe's essay argues that the author must be disentangled from the text (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Dialectic''': two-sided dialogue, formal argumentation system, conversation [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Doxa''': social knowledge [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== E ==

*'''Emthymeme''': uses audience's assumptions, only use 1 premise [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Entelechy''': the actualization of form-giving cause as contrasted with potential existence. (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Episteme''': core, truths of the earth knowledge [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Ethos''': The persuasive appeal of one's character, especially how this character is established by means of speech or discourse. Ethotic appeals rely on the trustworthiness of the speaker or writer. Ethos is an effective appeal because when the audience believes that the speaker does not intend to do them harm, they are more likely to trust what is being said. (Persuasive appeals: see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Etymologically''' (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])

== F ==

== G ==

== H ==
*'''Hypertext''': Ted Nelson, who coined the term hypertext, defines it as non-sequential writing. "This means writing in which the logical connections between elements are primarily associative rather than syllogistic, as in conventional text" (Slatin 171). (Slatin [[March 22 Class Notes]])

== I ==

*'''Intentional Fallacy''': William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley asserted that the author's words, not his intent, should be studied. Richards argued that since an authors mind can never be known, we can only examine her words (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Interpretant''': how you perceive the representamen (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])
*'''Inter-Textual Variations''': On the inter-textual level, text is structured through alphanumeric cues (headings, numbers), spatial cues (horizontal and vertical distribution of text on a page) and graphic cues (bullets, arrows, lines on tables).
*'''Intra-Textual Variations''': local changes in typography, such as boldfacing, upper case, italics, etc.
*'''Supra-Textual Structuring''': affects the document globally, with section titles, page headers, tabs, page size, orientation, the placement of extra-textual elements (e.g. data display and pictures), icons, page color, and various line, textures, and marks. Supra-textual cues create visual coherence among units in a document (see [https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/alred/www/pdf/kostelnick-rhetoricoftext.pdf Rhetoric of Text])

== J ==

== K ==

*'''Krisis''': point of judgment, moment of decision [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== L ==

*'''Logology''': study of language and symbols (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Logos''': the appeal to reason. Logical appeals attempt to persuade the audience using intellect. Most academic arguments rely mainly on logos. (Persuasive appeals: [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== M ==

== N ==

*'''New Criticism''': Richards' ideas helped establish this movement, which viewed texts as completely autonomous (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''New Rhetoric''': theory of argumentation (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Node''': Any object which is linked to another object (Slatin [[March 22 Class Notes]])

== O ==

*'''Object''': the action you take (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])

== P ==

*'''Paradeigma''': use of example or evidence to prove a point [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Pathos''': the appeal to emotion. When people accept a claim based on how it makes them feels=, they are acting on pathos. A majority of advertisements and arguments in the popular press rely heavily on pathetic appeals. Although the pathetic appeal can be manipulative, it is the cornerstone of moving people to action. (Persuasive appeals: [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Pisteis''': proofs, persuasive appeals (logos, ethos, pathos); artistic (logical, logos, nonlogical, ethos and pathos) and inartistic (tangible evidence) proofs [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Poeis''': fine arts [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Proofs''': Justification, reasoning, argumentation. (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])

== Q ==

== R ==

*'''Rationalism''': truth is not sensory, but intellectual and deductive. You only know thought through deductive reasoning. (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Representame'''n: what something represents to you personally (creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign) (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])
* Rhetoric: (see [[Definitions of Rhetoric]])

== S ==

*'''Signified''': concept in the mind (not a thing but the notion of a thing) ([["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]])
*'''Signifier''': the material (or physical form) of the sign ([["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]])
*'''Syllogism''': logical/deductive, conclusion resting on 2 premises (major, minor, conclusion) [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== T ==

*'''Techne''': art, craft ([["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Telos''': an ultimate end. (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Tropism''': growth toward or away from external stimulus (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])

== U ==

== V ==

== W ==

== X ==

== Y ==

== Z ==

Glossary

2011-04-12T14:44:27Z

JenniferSchrauth: /* I */

This page is dedicated to key terms from the readings.

== A ==

*'''Affective Fallacy''': Wimsatt and Berdsley claimed that evaluating literature by the way it affects the reader is uselessly subjective. Again, literature should be evaluated through its use of language, not outside factors (see [["How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards]])
*'''Aleatoric''': according to chance (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Ambiguity''': Richards showed how under-examined ambiguities can lead to misinterpretation of an entire work (see [["How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards]])
*'''Animism''': according to Aristotle, all objects have souls (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Antistrophos''': counterpart, companion (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])

== B ==

*'''Bricolage''': (in art or literature) construction or creation from a diverse range of available things (see [[April 5 Class Notes]])

== C ==

*'''Chariot allegory''': Socrates compares the soul to chariot horses and their rider. He believes the soul (chariot rider) is immortal and consists of one good horse and one bad horse. The soul is in constant struggle balancing and choosing between the two horses. Through the good soul only, the chariot can make it to eternity or heaven. (Weaver [[February 15 Class Notes]])
*'''Classical Rhetori'''c: theory of persuasive discourse (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Close Reading''': Richards shifted the focus from general analysis to a meticulous, word-level method of interpretation, which has greatly influenced modern criticism. (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])

== D ==

*'''Death of the Author''': Roland Barthe's essay argues that the author must be disentangled from the text (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Dialectic''': two-sided dialogue, formal argumentation system, conversation [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Doxa''': social knowledge [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== E ==

*'''Emthymeme''': uses audience's assumptions, only use 1 premise [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Entelechy''': the actualization of form-giving cause as contrasted with potential existence. (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Episteme''': core, truths of the earth knowledge [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Ethos''': The persuasive appeal of one's character, especially how this character is established by means of speech or discourse. Ethotic appeals rely on the trustworthiness of the speaker or writer. Ethos is an effective appeal because when the audience believes that the speaker does not intend to do them harm, they are more likely to trust what is being said. (Persuasive appeals: see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Etymologically''' (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])

== F ==

== G ==

== H ==
*'''Hypertext''': Ted Nelson, who coined the term hypertext, defines it as non-sequential writing. "This means writing in which the logical connections between elements are primarily associative rather than syllogistic, as in conventional text" (Slatin 171). (Slatin [[March 22 Class Notes]])

== I ==

*'''Intentional Fallacy''': William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley asserted that the author's words, not his intent, should be studied. Richards argued that since an authors mind can never be known, we can only examine her words (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Interpretant''': how you perceive the representamen (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])
*'''Inter-Textual Variations''': On the inter-textual level, text is structured through alphanumeric cues (headings, numbers), spatial cues (horizontal and vertical distribution of text on a page) and graphic cues (bullets, arrows, lines on tables).
*'''Intra-Textual Variations''': local changes in typography, such as boldfacing, upper case, italics, etc.
*'''Supra-Textual Structuring''': affects the document globally, with section titles, page headers, tabs, page size, orientation, the placement of extra-textual elements (e.g. data display and pictures), icons, page color, and various line, textures, and marks. Supra-textual cues create visual coherence among units in a document (see [https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/alred/www/pdf/kostelnick-rhetoricoftext.pdf /Rhetoric of Text])

== J ==

== K ==

*'''Krisis''': point of judgment, moment of decision [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== L ==

*'''Logology''': study of language and symbols (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Logos''': the appeal to reason. Logical appeals attempt to persuade the audience using intellect. Most academic arguments rely mainly on logos. (Persuasive appeals: [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== M ==

== N ==

*'''New Criticism''': Richards' ideas helped establish this movement, which viewed texts as completely autonomous (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''New Rhetoric''': theory of argumentation (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Node''': Any object which is linked to another object (Slatin [[March 22 Class Notes]])

== O ==

*'''Object''': the action you take (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])

== P ==

*'''Paradeigma''': use of example or evidence to prove a point [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Pathos''': the appeal to emotion. When people accept a claim based on how it makes them feels=, they are acting on pathos. A majority of advertisements and arguments in the popular press rely heavily on pathetic appeals. Although the pathetic appeal can be manipulative, it is the cornerstone of moving people to action. (Persuasive appeals: [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Pisteis''': proofs, persuasive appeals (logos, ethos, pathos); artistic (logical, logos, nonlogical, ethos and pathos) and inartistic (tangible evidence) proofs [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Poeis''': fine arts [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Proofs''': Justification, reasoning, argumentation. (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])

== Q ==

== R ==

*'''Rationalism''': truth is not sensory, but intellectual and deductive. You only know thought through deductive reasoning. (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Representame'''n: what something represents to you personally (creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign) (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])
* Rhetoric: (see [[Definitions of Rhetoric]])

== S ==

*'''Signified''': concept in the mind (not a thing but the notion of a thing) ([["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]])
*'''Signifier''': the material (or physical form) of the sign ([["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]])
*'''Syllogism''': logical/deductive, conclusion resting on 2 premises (major, minor, conclusion) [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== T ==

*'''Techne''': art, craft ([["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Telos''': an ultimate end. (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Tropism''': growth toward or away from external stimulus (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])

== U ==

== V ==

== W ==

== X ==

== Y ==

== Z ==

Glossary

2011-04-12T14:43:23Z

JenniferSchrauth: /* I */

This page is dedicated to key terms from the readings.

== A ==

*'''Affective Fallacy''': Wimsatt and Berdsley claimed that evaluating literature by the way it affects the reader is uselessly subjective. Again, literature should be evaluated through its use of language, not outside factors (see [["How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards]])
*'''Aleatoric''': according to chance (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Ambiguity''': Richards showed how under-examined ambiguities can lead to misinterpretation of an entire work (see [["How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards]])
*'''Animism''': according to Aristotle, all objects have souls (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Antistrophos''': counterpart, companion (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])

== B ==

*'''Bricolage''': (in art or literature) construction or creation from a diverse range of available things (see [[April 5 Class Notes]])

== C ==

*'''Chariot allegory''': Socrates compares the soul to chariot horses and their rider. He believes the soul (chariot rider) is immortal and consists of one good horse and one bad horse. The soul is in constant struggle balancing and choosing between the two horses. Through the good soul only, the chariot can make it to eternity or heaven. (Weaver [[February 15 Class Notes]])
*'''Classical Rhetori'''c: theory of persuasive discourse (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Close Reading''': Richards shifted the focus from general analysis to a meticulous, word-level method of interpretation, which has greatly influenced modern criticism. (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])

== D ==

*'''Death of the Author''': Roland Barthe's essay argues that the author must be disentangled from the text (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Dialectic''': two-sided dialogue, formal argumentation system, conversation [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Doxa''': social knowledge [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== E ==

*'''Emthymeme''': uses audience's assumptions, only use 1 premise [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Entelechy''': the actualization of form-giving cause as contrasted with potential existence. (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Episteme''': core, truths of the earth knowledge [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Ethos''': The persuasive appeal of one's character, especially how this character is established by means of speech or discourse. Ethotic appeals rely on the trustworthiness of the speaker or writer. Ethos is an effective appeal because when the audience believes that the speaker does not intend to do them harm, they are more likely to trust what is being said. (Persuasive appeals: see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Etymologically''' (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])

== F ==

== G ==

== H ==
*'''Hypertext''': Ted Nelson, who coined the term hypertext, defines it as non-sequential writing. "This means writing in which the logical connections between elements are primarily associative rather than syllogistic, as in conventional text" (Slatin 171). (Slatin [[March 22 Class Notes]])

== I ==

*'''Intentional Fallacy''': William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley asserted that the author's words, not his intent, should be studied. Richards argued that since an authors mind can never be known, we can only examine her words (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Interpretant''': how you perceive the representamen (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])
*'''Inter-Textual Variations''': On the inter-textual level, text is structured through alphanumeric cues (headings, numbers), spatial cues (horizontal and vertical distribution of text on a page) and graphic cues (bullets, arrows, lines on tables).
*'''Intra-Textual Variations''': local changes in typography, such as boldfacing, upper case, italics, etc.
*'''Supra-Textual Structuring''': affects the document globally, with section titles, page headers, tabs, page size, orientation, the placement of extra-textual elements (e.g. data display and pictures), icons, page color, and various line, textures, and marks. Supra-textual cues create visual coherence among units in a document (see [https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/alred/www/pdf/kostelnick-rhetoricoftext.pdf]/ Rhetoric of Text)

== J ==

== K ==

*'''Krisis''': point of judgment, moment of decision [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== L ==

*'''Logology''': study of language and symbols (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Logos''': the appeal to reason. Logical appeals attempt to persuade the audience using intellect. Most academic arguments rely mainly on logos. (Persuasive appeals: [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== M ==

== N ==

*'''New Criticism''': Richards' ideas helped establish this movement, which viewed texts as completely autonomous (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''New Rhetoric''': theory of argumentation (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Node''': Any object which is linked to another object (Slatin [[March 22 Class Notes]])

== O ==

*'''Object''': the action you take (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])

== P ==

*'''Paradeigma''': use of example or evidence to prove a point [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Pathos''': the appeal to emotion. When people accept a claim based on how it makes them feels=, they are acting on pathos. A majority of advertisements and arguments in the popular press rely heavily on pathetic appeals. Although the pathetic appeal can be manipulative, it is the cornerstone of moving people to action. (Persuasive appeals: [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Pisteis''': proofs, persuasive appeals (logos, ethos, pathos); artistic (logical, logos, nonlogical, ethos and pathos) and inartistic (tangible evidence) proofs [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Poeis''': fine arts [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Proofs''': Justification, reasoning, argumentation. (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])

== Q ==

== R ==

*'''Rationalism''': truth is not sensory, but intellectual and deductive. You only know thought through deductive reasoning. (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Representame'''n: what something represents to you personally (creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign) (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])
* Rhetoric: (see [[Definitions of Rhetoric]])

== S ==

*'''Signified''': concept in the mind (not a thing but the notion of a thing) ([["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]])
*'''Signifier''': the material (or physical form) of the sign ([["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]])
*'''Syllogism''': logical/deductive, conclusion resting on 2 premises (major, minor, conclusion) [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== T ==

*'''Techne''': art, craft ([["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Telos''': an ultimate end. (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Tropism''': growth toward or away from external stimulus (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])

== U ==

== V ==

== W ==

== X ==

== Y ==

== Z ==

Glossary

2011-04-12T14:41:01Z

JenniferSchrauth: /* I */

This page is dedicated to key terms from the readings.

== A ==

*'''Affective Fallacy''': Wimsatt and Berdsley claimed that evaluating literature by the way it affects the reader is uselessly subjective. Again, literature should be evaluated through its use of language, not outside factors (see [["How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards]])
*'''Aleatoric''': according to chance (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Ambiguity''': Richards showed how under-examined ambiguities can lead to misinterpretation of an entire work (see [["How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards]])
*'''Animism''': according to Aristotle, all objects have souls (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Antistrophos''': counterpart, companion (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])

== B ==

*'''Bricolage''': (in art or literature) construction or creation from a diverse range of available things (see [[April 5 Class Notes]])

== C ==

*'''Chariot allegory''': Socrates compares the soul to chariot horses and their rider. He believes the soul (chariot rider) is immortal and consists of one good horse and one bad horse. The soul is in constant struggle balancing and choosing between the two horses. Through the good soul only, the chariot can make it to eternity or heaven. (Weaver [[February 15 Class Notes]])
*'''Classical Rhetori'''c: theory of persuasive discourse (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Close Reading''': Richards shifted the focus from general analysis to a meticulous, word-level method of interpretation, which has greatly influenced modern criticism. (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])

== D ==

*'''Death of the Author''': Roland Barthe's essay argues that the author must be disentangled from the text (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Dialectic''': two-sided dialogue, formal argumentation system, conversation [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Doxa''': social knowledge [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== E ==

*'''Emthymeme''': uses audience's assumptions, only use 1 premise [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Entelechy''': the actualization of form-giving cause as contrasted with potential existence. (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Episteme''': core, truths of the earth knowledge [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Ethos''': The persuasive appeal of one's character, especially how this character is established by means of speech or discourse. Ethotic appeals rely on the trustworthiness of the speaker or writer. Ethos is an effective appeal because when the audience believes that the speaker does not intend to do them harm, they are more likely to trust what is being said. (Persuasive appeals: see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Etymologically''' (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])

== F ==

== G ==

== H ==
*'''Hypertext''': Ted Nelson, who coined the term hypertext, defines it as non-sequential writing. "This means writing in which the logical connections between elements are primarily associative rather than syllogistic, as in conventional text" (Slatin 171). (Slatin [[March 22 Class Notes]])

== I ==

*'''Intentional Fallacy''': William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley asserted that the author's words, not his intent, should be studied. Richards argued that since an authors mind can never be known, we can only examine her words (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Interpretant''': how you perceive the representamen (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])
*Inter-Textual Variations: On the inter-textual level, text is structured through alphanumeric cues (headings, numbers), spatial cues (horizontal and vertical distribution of text on a page) and graphic cues (bullets, arrows, lines on tables).
*Intra-Textual Variations: local changes in typography, such as boldfacing, upper case, italics, etc.
*Supra-Textual Structuring: affects the document globally, with section titles, page headers, tabs, page size, orientation, the placement of extra-textual elements (e.g. data display and pictures), icons, page color, and various line, textures, and marks. Supra-textual cues create visual coherence among units in a document (see https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/alred/www/pdf/kostelnick-rhetoricoftext.pdf/Rhetoric of Text)

== J ==

== K ==

*'''Krisis''': point of judgment, moment of decision [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== L ==

*'''Logology''': study of language and symbols (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Logos''': the appeal to reason. Logical appeals attempt to persuade the audience using intellect. Most academic arguments rely mainly on logos. (Persuasive appeals: [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== M ==

== N ==

*'''New Criticism''': Richards' ideas helped establish this movement, which viewed texts as completely autonomous (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''New Rhetoric''': theory of argumentation (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Node''': Any object which is linked to another object (Slatin [[March 22 Class Notes]])

== O ==

*'''Object''': the action you take (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])

== P ==

*'''Paradeigma''': use of example or evidence to prove a point [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Pathos''': the appeal to emotion. When people accept a claim based on how it makes them feels=, they are acting on pathos. A majority of advertisements and arguments in the popular press rely heavily on pathetic appeals. Although the pathetic appeal can be manipulative, it is the cornerstone of moving people to action. (Persuasive appeals: [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Pisteis''': proofs, persuasive appeals (logos, ethos, pathos); artistic (logical, logos, nonlogical, ethos and pathos) and inartistic (tangible evidence) proofs [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Poeis''': fine arts [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Proofs''': Justification, reasoning, argumentation. (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])

== Q ==

== R ==

*'''Rationalism''': truth is not sensory, but intellectual and deductive. You only know thought through deductive reasoning. (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Representame'''n: what something represents to you personally (creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign) (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])
* Rhetoric: (see [[Definitions of Rhetoric]])

== S ==

*'''Signified''': concept in the mind (not a thing but the notion of a thing) ([["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]])
*'''Signifier''': the material (or physical form) of the sign ([["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]])
*'''Syllogism''': logical/deductive, conclusion resting on 2 premises (major, minor, conclusion) [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== T ==

*'''Techne''': art, craft ([["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Telos''': an ultimate end. (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Tropism''': growth toward or away from external stimulus (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])

== U ==

== V ==

== W ==

== X ==

== Y ==

== Z ==

Glossary

2011-04-07T15:37:43Z

JenniferSchrauth: /* R */

This page is dedicated to key terms from the readings.

== A ==

*'''Affective Fallacy''': Wimsatt and Berdsley claimed that evaluating literature by the way it affects the reader is uselessly subjective. Again, literature should be evaluated through its use of language, not outside factors (see [["How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards]])
*'''Aleatoric''': according to chance (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Ambiguity''': Richards showed how under-examined ambiguities can lead to misinterpretation of an entire work (see [["How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards]])
*'''Animism''': according to Aristotle, all objects have souls (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Antistrophos''': counterpart, companion (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])

== B ==

*'''Bricolage''': (in art or literature) construction or creation from a diverse range of available things (see [[April 5 Class Notes]])

== C ==

*'''Chariot allegory''': Socrates compares the soul to chariot horses and their rider. He believes the soul (chariot rider) is immortal and consists of one good horse and one bad horse. The soul is in constant struggle balancing and choosing between the two horses. Through the good soul only, the chariot can make it to eternity or heaven. (Weaver [[February 15 Class Notes]])
*'''Classical Rhetori'''c: theory of persuasive discourse (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Close Reading''': Richards shifted the focus from general analysis to a meticulous, word-level method of interpretation, which has greatly influenced modern criticism. (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])

== D ==

*'''Death of the Author''': Roland Barthe's essay argues that the author must be disentangled from the text (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Dialectic''': two-sided dialogue, formal argumentation system, conversation [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Doxa''': social knowledge [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== E ==

*'''Emthymeme''': uses audience's assumptions, only use 1 premise [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Entelechy''': the actualization of form-giving cause as contrasted with potential existence. (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Episteme''': core, truths of the earth knowledge [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Ethos''': The persuasive appeal of one's character, especially how this character is established by means of speech or discourse. Ethotic appeals rely on the trustworthiness of the speaker or writer. Ethos is an effective appeal because when the audience believes that the speaker does not intend to do them harm, they are more likely to trust what is being said. (Persuasive appeals: see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Etymologically''' (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])

== F ==

== G ==

== H ==
*'''Hypertext''': Ted Nelson, who coined the term hypertext, defines it as non-sequential writing. "This means writing in which the logical connections between elements are primarily associative rather than syllogistic, as in conventional text" (Slatin 171). (Slatin [[March 22 Class Notes]])

== I ==

*'''Intentional Fallacy''': William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley asserted that the author's words, not his intent, should be studied. Richards argued that since an authors mind can never be known, we can only examine her words (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Interpretant''': how you perceive the representamen (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])

== J ==

== K ==

*'''Krisis''': point of judgment, moment of decision [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== L ==

*'''Logology''': study of language and symbols (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Logos''': the appeal to reason. Logical appeals attempt to persuade the audience using intellect. Most academic arguments rely mainly on logos. (Persuasive appeals: [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== M ==

== N ==

*'''New Criticism''': Richards' ideas helped establish this movement, which viewed texts as completely autonomous (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''New Rhetoric''': theory of argumentation (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Node''': Any object which is linked to another object (Slatin [[March 22 Class Notes]])

== O ==

*'''Object''': the action you take (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])

== P ==

*'''Paradeigma''': use of example or evidence to prove a point [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Pathos''': the appeal to emotion. When people accept a claim based on how it makes them feels=, they are acting on pathos. A majority of advertisements and arguments in the popular press rely heavily on pathetic appeals. Although the pathetic appeal can be manipulative, it is the cornerstone of moving people to action. (Persuasive appeals: [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Pisteis''': proofs, persuasive appeals (logos, ethos, pathos); artistic (logical, logos, nonlogical, ethos and pathos) and inartistic (tangible evidence) proofs [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Poeis''': fine arts [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Proofs''': Justification, reasoning, argumentation. (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])

== Q ==

== R ==

*'''Rationalism''': truth is not sensory, but intellectual and deductive. You only know thought through deductive reasoning. (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Representame'''n: what something represents to you personally (creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign) (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])
* Rhetoric: (see [[Definitions of Rhetoric]])

== S ==

*'''Signified''': concept in the mind (not a thing but the notion of a thing) ([["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]])
*'''Signifier''': the material (or physical form) of the sign ([["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]])
*'''Syllogism''': logical/deductive, conclusion resting on 2 premises (major, minor, conclusion) [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== T ==

*'''Techne''': art, craft ([["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Telos''': an ultimate end. (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Tropism''': growth toward or away from external stimulus (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])

== U ==

== V ==

== W ==

== X ==

== Y ==

== Z ==

Definitions of Rhetoric

2011-04-07T15:36:28Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "This page will have definitions of rhetoric according to some of the authors we have read this semester."

This page will have definitions of rhetoric according to some of the authors we have read this semester.

Glossary

2011-04-07T15:29:05Z

JenniferSchrauth: /* A */

This page is dedicated to key terms from the readings.

== A ==

*'''Affective Fallacy''': Wimsatt and Berdsley claimed that evaluating literature by the way it affects the reader is uselessly subjective. Again, literature should be evaluated through its use of language, not outside factors (see [["How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards]])
*'''Aleatoric''': according to chance (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Ambiguity''': Richards showed how under-examined ambiguities can lead to misinterpretation of an entire work (see [["How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards]])
*'''Animism''': according to Aristotle, all objects have souls (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Antistrophos''': counterpart, companion (see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])

== B ==

*'''Bricolage''': (in art or literature) construction or creation from a diverse range of available things (see [[April 5 Class Notes]])

== C ==

*'''Chariot allegory''': Socrates compares the soul to chariot horses and their rider. He believes the soul (chariot rider) is immortal and consists of one good horse and one bad horse. The soul is in constant struggle balancing and choosing between the two horses. Through the good soul only, the chariot can make it to eternity or heaven. (Weaver [[February 15 Class Notes]])
*'''Classical Rhetori'''c: theory of persuasive discourse (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Close Reading''': Richards shifted the focus from general analysis to a meticulous, word-level method of interpretation, which has greatly influenced modern criticism. (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])

== D ==

*'''Death of the Author''': Roland Barthe's essay argues that the author must be disentangled from the text (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Dialectic''': two-sided dialogue, formal argumentation system, conversation [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Doxa''': social knowledge [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== E ==

*'''Emthymeme''': uses audience's assumptions, only use 1 premise [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Entelechy''': the actualization of form-giving cause as contrasted with potential existence. (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Episteme''': core, truths of the earth knowledge [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Ethos''': The persuasive appeal of one's character, especially how this character is established by means of speech or discourse. Ethotic appeals rely on the trustworthiness of the speaker or writer. Ethos is an effective appeal because when the audience believes that the speaker does not intend to do them harm, they are more likely to trust what is being said. (Persuasive appeals: see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Etymologically''' (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])

== F ==

== G ==

== H ==
*'''Hypertext''': Ted Nelson, who coined the term hypertext, defines it as non-sequential writing. "This means writing in which the logical connections between elements are primarily associative rather than syllogistic, as in conventional text" (Slatin 171). (Slatin [[March 22 Class Notes]])

== I ==

*'''Intentional Fallacy''': William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley asserted that the author's words, not his intent, should be studied. Richards argued that since an authors mind can never be known, we can only examine her words (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Interpretant''': how you perceive the representamen (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])

== J ==

== K ==

*'''Krisis''': point of judgment, moment of decision [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== L ==

*'''Logology''': study of language and symbols (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Logos''': the appeal to reason. Logical appeals attempt to persuade the audience using intellect. Most academic arguments rely mainly on logos. (Persuasive appeals: [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== M ==

== N ==

*'''New Criticism''': Richards' ideas helped establish this movement, which viewed texts as completely autonomous (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''New Rhetoric''': theory of argumentation (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Node''': Any object which is linked to another object (Slatin [[March 22 Class Notes]])

== O ==

*'''Object''': the action you take (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])

== P ==

*'''Paradeigma''': use of example or evidence to prove a point [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Pathos''': the appeal to emotion. When people accept a claim based on how it makes them feels=, they are acting on pathos. A majority of advertisements and arguments in the popular press rely heavily on pathetic appeals. Although the pathetic appeal can be manipulative, it is the cornerstone of moving people to action. (Persuasive appeals: [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Pisteis''': proofs, persuasive appeals (logos, ethos, pathos); artistic (logical, logos, nonlogical, ethos and pathos) and inartistic (tangible evidence) proofs [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Poeis''': fine arts [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Proofs''': Justification, reasoning, argumentation. (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])

== Q ==

== R ==

*'''Rationalism''': truth is not sensory, but intellectual and deductive. You only know thought through deductive reasoning. (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Representame'''n: what something represents to you personally (creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign) (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])

== S ==

*'''Signified''': concept in the mind (not a thing but the notion of a thing) ([["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]])
*'''Signifier''': the material (or physical form) of the sign ([["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]])
*'''Syllogism''': logical/deductive, conclusion resting on 2 premises (major, minor, conclusion) [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== T ==

*'''Techne''': art, craft ([["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Telos''': an ultimate end. (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Tropism''': growth toward or away from external stimulus (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])

== U ==

== V ==

== W ==

== X ==

== Y ==

== Z ==

Glossary

2011-04-07T15:26:16Z

JenniferSchrauth:

This page is dedicated to key terms from the readings.

== A ==

*'''Affective Fallacy''': Wimsatt and Berdsley claimed that evaluating literature by the way it affects the reader is uselessly subjective. Again, literature should be evaluated through its use of language, not outside factors (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Aleatoric''': according to chance ([["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Ambiguity''': Richards showed how under-examined ambiguities can lead to misinterpretation of an entire work (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Animism''': according to Aristotle, all objects have souls ([["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Antistrophos''': counterpart, companion ([["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])

== B ==

*'''Bricolage''': (in art or literature) construction or creation from a diverse range of available things (see [[April 5 Class Notes]])

== C ==

*'''Chariot allegory''': Socrates compares the soul to chariot horses and their rider. He believes the soul (chariot rider) is immortal and consists of one good horse and one bad horse. The soul is in constant struggle balancing and choosing between the two horses. Through the good soul only, the chariot can make it to eternity or heaven. (Weaver [[February 15 Class Notes]])
*'''Classical Rhetori'''c: theory of persuasive discourse (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Close Reading''': Richards shifted the focus from general analysis to a meticulous, word-level method of interpretation, which has greatly influenced modern criticism. (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])

== D ==

*'''Death of the Author''': Roland Barthe's essay argues that the author must be disentangled from the text (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Dialectic''': two-sided dialogue, formal argumentation system, conversation [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Doxa''': social knowledge [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== E ==

*'''Emthymeme''': uses audience's assumptions, only use 1 premise [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Entelechy''': the actualization of form-giving cause as contrasted with potential existence. (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Episteme''': core, truths of the earth knowledge [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Ethos''': The persuasive appeal of one's character, especially how this character is established by means of speech or discourse. Ethotic appeals rely on the trustworthiness of the speaker or writer. Ethos is an effective appeal because when the audience believes that the speaker does not intend to do them harm, they are more likely to trust what is being said. (Persuasive appeals: see [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Etymologically''' (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])

== F ==

== G ==

== H ==
*'''Hypertext''': Ted Nelson, who coined the term hypertext, defines it as non-sequential writing. "This means writing in which the logical connections between elements are primarily associative rather than syllogistic, as in conventional text" (Slatin 171). (Slatin [[March 22 Class Notes]])

== I ==

*'''Intentional Fallacy''': William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley asserted that the author's words, not his intent, should be studied. Richards argued that since an authors mind can never be known, we can only examine her words (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''Interpretant''': how you perceive the representamen (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])

== J ==

== K ==

*'''Krisis''': point of judgment, moment of decision [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== L ==

*'''Logology''': study of language and symbols (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Logos''': the appeal to reason. Logical appeals attempt to persuade the audience using intellect. Most academic arguments rely mainly on logos. (Persuasive appeals: [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== M ==

== N ==

*'''New Criticism''': Richards' ideas helped establish this movement, which viewed texts as completely autonomous (Richards [[February 1 Class Notes]])
*'''New Rhetoric''': theory of argumentation (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Node''': Any object which is linked to another object (Slatin [[March 22 Class Notes]])

== O ==

*'''Object''': the action you take (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])

== P ==

*'''Paradeigma''': use of example or evidence to prove a point [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Pathos''': the appeal to emotion. When people accept a claim based on how it makes them feels=, they are acting on pathos. A majority of advertisements and arguments in the popular press rely heavily on pathetic appeals. Although the pathetic appeal can be manipulative, it is the cornerstone of moving people to action. (Persuasive appeals: [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Pisteis''': proofs, persuasive appeals (logos, ethos, pathos); artistic (logical, logos, nonlogical, ethos and pathos) and inartistic (tangible evidence) proofs [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Poeis''': fine arts [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]
*'''Proofs''': Justification, reasoning, argumentation. (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])

== Q ==

== R ==

*'''Rationalism''': truth is not sensory, but intellectual and deductive. You only know thought through deductive reasoning. (Perelman [[February 10 Class Notes]])
*'''Representame'''n: what something represents to you personally (creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign) (Peirce [[January 25 Class Notes]])

== S ==

*'''Signified''': concept in the mind (not a thing but the notion of a thing) ([["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]])
*'''Signifier''': the material (or physical form) of the sign ([["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]])
*'''Syllogism''': logical/deductive, conclusion resting on 2 premises (major, minor, conclusion) [["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]]

== T ==

*'''Techne''': art, craft ([["On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric" by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede]])
*'''Telos''': an ultimate end. (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])
*'''Tropism''': growth toward or away from external stimulus (Burke [[January 27 Class Notes]])

== U ==

== V ==

== W ==

== X ==

== Y ==

== Z ==

“Contrasts: Teaching and Learning about Writing in Traditional and Computer Classrooms” by Mike Palmquist, Kate Kiefer, James Hartvigsen, and Barbara Goodlew

2011-04-07T15:19:13Z

JenniferSchrauth:

[[Mike Palmquist]] et al. highlighted the difference between writing in a traditional classroom versus a computer classroom by looking at these specific areas: “teaching strategies and class preparation; teacher attitudes about teaching in the two classroom settings; interactions among students and between teachers and students; students attitudes about writing, and student writing performance” (252). The seven themes they identified with in their studies were as followed: “ curricular issues; teachers roles; interaction among classmates between students and teachers; the classroom context; transfer of activities from the computer to the traditional classrooms; the introductions and use of technology in the computer classroom, and; student attitudes and writing performance” (255). With these themes, teachers noted that students tended to write more in the computer classroom and has less anxiety about using technology, while in the traditional classroom the students resisted writing because they found that drafting and reviewing seemed unnecessary because they were going to have to type it up later. Traditional classrooms were more teacher focused, because the teachers felt they had to constantly be giving instruction and leading the class through lectures, group discussions, and more; whereas, the computer classrooms were more student focused and the teachers served more as a role of a supporter by putting the responsibility on their students for their own learning. The hardest part for the teachers was to try to put the things they found effective in one class in the other. There were many difference to the interaction between students and teachers inside and outside of class in both cases, but students seem to talk more to each other about writing in the computer classroom.

Dennis Baron

2011-04-07T15:18:18Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "Biography forthcoming..."

Biography forthcoming...

Authors

2011-04-07T15:17:48Z

JenniferSchrauth:

*[[Andrea Lunsford]]
*[[Bill Hart-Davidson]]
*[[Chaim Perelman]]
*[[Cynthia L. Selfe]]
*[[Dennis Baron]]
*[[Donald C. Bryant]]
*[[Douglas Brent]]
*[[Ferdinand de Saussure]]
*[[I.A Richards]]
*[[Jim W. Corder]]
*[[John Logie]]
*[[Johndan Johnson-Eilola]]
*[[Kathleen Blake Yancey]]
*[[Kenneth Burke]]
*[[Lisa Ede]]
*[[Madeleine Sorapure]]
*[[Michel Foucault]]
*[[Mike Palmquist]]
*[[Mikhail Bakhtin]]
*[[Richard Ohmann]]
*[[Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]
*[[Richard Weaver]]
*[[Robert L. Scott]]
*[[Roland Barthes]]
*[[S. Michael Halloran]]
*[[Sean D. Williams]]
*[[Stephen Toulmin]]
*[[Steven D. Krause]]

“From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technology” by Dennis Baron

2011-04-07T15:15:22Z

JenniferSchrauth:

In “From Pencils to Pixels,” [[Dennis Baron]] asserts that “the computer is simply the latest step in a long line of writing technologies” (118). Before stating his assertion, Baron provides a short glimpse of reactions to technologies, specifically to computers: some love them and some are extremely adverse to them. He also describes the general trend of reactions to new technologies introduced into society: excitement and confusion, tried out, rejected, and adapted into daily life while adapting ourselves to it as well. Baron proves this point by going all the way back to the first writing technology: writing. Since ancient times, many have been skeptical about writing, for some had been used for fraudulent purposes. However, today we are surrounded by text and have adapted ourselves to the written word. Baron continues to describe the development of the pencil. While many are so familiar with this technology that they believe it’s the “natural” and “traditional” way, the pencil was a created as well and changed the writing process. Then came the telegraph to which the creator of the modern pencil--Thoreau--was opposed. Then, he goes on to discuss the controversy of the telephone, in which elicited many unrealized predictions. Finally, Baron discusses the history of computer technology. For the full adaption and acceptance of the computer (like with all other technologies), people need to be able to authenticate the writing to ensure their trust and confidence, in addition to attributing expertise to the author. Since this is so difficult on the Internet, the task becomes creating ways or methods in which people can do that. Baron finishes his article with a few predictions that some have made regarding the future of the computer and the Internet and states that it is still too soon to see what is in store for the future.

Jim W. Corder

2011-04-07T15:12:51Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "Biography forthcoming..."

Biography forthcoming...

"Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love" by Jim W. Corder

2011-04-07T15:08:48Z

JenniferSchrauth:

In “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love,” [[Jim W. Corder]] claims that we are all constantly creating and adapting our own narratives and arguments as we live our lives. However, sometimes we will come across the narrative/argument of another that conflicts with or undermines ours. What to do in such a situation? Corder first references the therapeutic techniques of Carl Rogers, which were adapted to a rhetorical philosophy based on mutual understanding of the positions of each rhetor. But Corder thinks this isn’t sufficient to resolve some conflicts, as with heated political issues like abortion or war. In these situations he proposes we “see each other,” “know each other,” “be present to each other,” and “embrace each other” (421). As he writes, argument is not a display or presentation; it is an emergence towards the other: rhetoric should allow for a more commodious space in which conflicting views can coexist. Corder offers a variety of ways to facilitate this, such as learning to argue provisionally, or to remain “perpetually open and always closing” (425).

"On the End of Rhetoric: Classical and Modern" by S. Michael Halloran

2011-04-07T15:07:56Z

JenniferSchrauth:

In his essay “On the End of Rhetoric, Classical and Modern,” [[S. Michael Halloran]] lays out a well-organized argument that proceeds logically from part to part, ultimately resulting in the validation of his dissertation, of which this essay was originally a part of. First Halloran defines classical rhetoric as resting on wisdom and the availability of cultural knowledge, going so far as to say that the Renaissance was a rhetorical period based on the model of the “Renaissance man” who is perceived to know everything. Halloran then uses this definition to say that because of our lack of shared worlds and common knowledge, classical rhetoric cannot exist in the world today. He goes onto say that rhetoric can only be possible when speaker and audience “enter into the rhetorical transaction as a serious existential commitment” (338). All of this sets up Halloran’s argument that literature (as distinguished from propaganda by ethos) can be rhetorical for a number of reasons: literature is our means through which we become knowledgeable of the world, it gives shape to one’s self and world, and creates a shared world through which speaker and audience can existentially interact through shared lexicon and grammar. Literature is also concerned with audience, as all rhetoric is, and we can tell this through the use of conventionalized, repeatable patterns, without which literature would be chaotic and privatized.

“In Lieu of a New Rhetoric” by Richard Ohmann

2011-04-07T15:06:26Z

JenniferSchrauth:

In “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric,” [[Richard Ohmann]] starts by acknowledging the past perceptions of rhetoric as a “mysterious power” and as a “calculated procedure” bond in the similar characteristic of dealing with persuasion (298). He continues by contrasting the views of many of the new rhetoricians like I.A. Richards, Daniel Fogarty, and Richard Weaver--to name a few. He then states his purpose: “suggest one way in which contemporary ideas of rhetoric...resemble each other more than any of them resembles older ideas” (300). This similarity between the contemporary ideas is that they open the term rhetoric to incorporate a broader spectrum of linguistic activity; this is different from the classical view of rhetoric as persuasion. Ohmann outlines these relationships using five aspects: the relationship between the rhetor and the audience in which new rhetoric encompasses a more mutual relationship, rhetoric as a pursuit versus the transmission of truth, candor as a necessary condition of making rhetoric, the attribution of how much a work reflects the author (only in style says new rhetoricians), and rhetoric reflecting the concepts of a world view (of the world, community, group, or an individual). Ohmann continues to discuss rhetoric in terms of teaching freshman-level college students. He states that the current methods of grammarian rules, etc. are not affective in the classroom. Rather, he proposes a “four-part framework” for teaching freshman. First, the students must understand “the relationship between a piece of writing and its content.Then, they should be taught the “relationship between a piece of writing and its author” and its relationship with the audience (304). And, final idea they should learn is that of the world views previously discussed by Ohmann.

"On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic" by Robert L. Scott

2011-04-07T15:05:58Z

JenniferSchrauth:

[[Robert L. Scott]] begins “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic” by explaining how in the common conception of classical rhetoric (such as Plato’s portrayal in the Socratic dialogues), some people can know the “truth” and must use rhetoric to lead others to the truth. Yet Scott disagrees. Drawing on the work of Stephen Toulmin, he first explains how through the “analytic argument” (i.e., the kind of argument used in the traditional syllogism), one cannot actually gain any empirical knowledge about the world. This is because by nature, the facts of the world are contingent and dependent on time, whereas analytic arguments are meant to be immutable and time-independent. Scott then discusses Douglas Ehninger and Wayne Brockriede’s views on debate, saying that the “cooperative critical inquiry” used in debate is a more accurate means for finding—or creating—truth. Scott then explains how understanding the nature of truth has important ramifications in ethics. One must attempt to make the proper moral choices even though no objective standard of truth for ethics actually exists.

"The Layout of Arguments" by Stephen Toulmin

2011-04-07T15:05:24Z

JenniferSchrauth:

In “The Layout of Arguments,” [[Stephen Toulmin]]’s thesis is that a new framework is needed for argumentation, as an alternative to the syllogism. The framework (or layout) he proposes involves a claim made due to some data, a warrant (often implicit) given to support the inference of the claim from the data, possibly a qualification added to the claim along with conditions of exception, and backing supplied to provide sufficient grounds for a warrant. Toulmin claims that the syllogism is too ambiguous because, for instance, universal premises (such as “All men are mortal”) do not properly distinguish between warrant and backing. Additionally, with a syllogism one cannot always tell whether a universal premise is true only in theory or in existential, empirical fact. Toulmin explains that logicians have too long relied on the syllogism and that in doing so they have forced arguments into a mold that doesn’t take into account subtle distinctions.

“The Cultural Role of Rhetoric” by Richard Weaver

2011-04-07T15:04:50Z

JenniferSchrauth:

“The Cultural Role of Rhetoric” by [[Richard Weaver]] discusses the necessity of pairing dialect and rhetoric. His major claim is that societies cannot be secure or stable unless there exists a conjoining of dialect and rhetoric and that “dialect alone in the social realm is subversive” (76). Weaver claims that just focusing on dialect, as was the case with Socrates and is the case with the semantics, is dangerous and alienates dialectical purist from the rest of society. Using the end of one of the greatest and well-known philosophers, Socrates, he explains that the audience he was preaching to was not able to connect to his rationalistic discourse and argumentation. Thus, instead of praising his rational logic and argumentation, the audience felt alienated from Socrates and that he rejects their culture, values, and way of life, especially when he argues that he believes in the gods. As Socrates believes that this argumentation (dialectical) is all man needs and fulfills all man’s needs, Weaver argues that this puristic form of dialect strays to far from the conditio humana (human condition). Thus, rhetoric has the appeal to the human condition that dialect lacks. Weaver states that dialectic deals with inductions and syllogisms while rhetoric deals with examples and enthymemes. While people can follow syllogisms and inductions, they connect with examples and enthymemes. It is the common ground upon which persuasion can occur. Weaver further states that this is why Hellenistic rationalism died out and Christianity spread far and wide -- Jesus appealed to feelings, ideas, and hopes that Hellenistic rationalism could or would not. Weaver goes on to argue against the semantics--those who believe only in dialectic and that each word should have its appropriate definition and words without a secure definition should not be used--using the same principles discussed above. He ends by saying that rhetoric will survive dialectic attack.

"The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" by Chaïm Perelman

2011-04-07T15:04:02Z

JenniferSchrauth:

In "The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" [[Chaim Perelman]] starts his essay by explaining the fall out of classical rhetoric, and how the current rhetoric is different from the definitions it use to have. He doesn’t throw out the idea of classical rhetoric completely, though; he gives examples to show that classical rhetoric was practical, rather than just an empty style. Perelman tells how he discovered what he calls new rhetoric by studying how people make value judgments (connects with dialectical reasoning). Since the new rhetoric is “a theory of argumentation,” it is important to understand what differentiates argumentation from simply demonstrating (153). A demonstration is based off of rules and guidelines that were previously created. In demonstration, the orator/rhetor does not try to persuade or compel his or her audience. Argumentation, however, has the purpose of moving the audience, persuading the audience, communicating with the audience, and getting the audience to listen (154-55). All argumentation, therefore, must be made to be effective to its audience. This is where new rhetoric differentiates from classical rhetoric. New rhetoric “has a wider scope as nonformal reasoning that aims at obtaining or reinforcing the adherence of an audience” (155).

After learning what new rhetoric is, Perelman teaches us how it works. There are the uses of facts, truths, presumptions, values, hierarchies, and loci of the preferable. Facts and truths are things universally agreed upon; the orator does not need to spent his or her time trying to get the audience to believe these facts/truths. Values play the role of moving the audience, influencing their decisions. Perelman mentions that values that may seem universal are really not. He argues there is just a desire for an universal agreement. In any situation, the orator must “know the opinion of [his or her] audience,” so he or she can answer any questions asked (159). The orator must be have prepared his argument with relevant information both to the audience and the subject. They must also know what they considered a strong/weak argument, and what type of argument will get his audience will care for (listen to), and what type of argument his audience won’t care about (159). The orator must choose an effective argument and structure it so his or her audience comes to his or her desired conclusion.

Perelman talks about Quasi Logical arguments that uses an artificial language so “one sign can have only one meaning” (162). There are also arguments that appeal to the real, meaning they are based on reality’s structure. Arguments that attempt to establish the real are arguments trying to generate a reality.

Perelman also discusses how to deal with dissociation. According to him, philosophers use dissociation to move the audience from common sense into a “vision of reality” that doesn’t have conflict of opinions.

“Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes

2011-04-07T15:03:22Z

JenniferSchrauth:

“Death of the Author” by [[Roland Barthes]] discusses and criticizes the emphasis literary critics place on the author while offering an alternative emphasis. The article claims that many have tried to break the idea that so much weight of discourse lies upon the authors. The examples include Mallarme’s attempt to suppress the author in poetics and Valery’s stress on linguistics and the text. Barthes claims that nothing is original because it all comes from already constructed dictionary from which all write. The dictionary, he also asserts, is just a “tissue of signs imitation that is lost, infinitely deferred.” Then, Barthes states that putting an author on the text limits it and potential interpretations. He further states that the existence of writing is “a text...made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations...” All of this multiplicity is thus focused in the readers. They are the ones that have to power to make a variety of different interpretations, emotions, and hold all the traces of text of which the text being read consists. The author can only understand and convey his/her own interpretation. Therefore, “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.”

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

2011-04-07T15:01:51Z

JenniferSchrauth:

[[Donald C. Bryant]]’s purpose is to discuss the “functions and scope with any system will embrace” (268). There are many confusing meanings to rhetoric, making it difficult to actually analyze. One example of a confusing meaning is rhetoric as the use of empty language (“language used to deceive, without honest intention behind it” [269]). Rhetoric is also referred to as a way of saying anything. Bryant understands rhetoric to be the “rationale of informative and suasory discourse” (271). This rhetoric does not include symbols (stop signs, pictures, colors, sirens, etc.). Rhetors, though they don’t have to be specialists in the subject, must thoroughly understand their subjects, so they can find a way to get their audiences to understand and move. This also implies rhetoric is concerned with appearance; truth has to look true, just as dishonest rhetoric should be realized as dishonest.

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).

"How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards

2011-04-07T15:00:55Z

JenniferSchrauth:

In “How to Read a Page,” [[I.A Richards]] writes at length about ideal strategies for interacting with and making meaning out of texts. He explains the difficulties involved in varying interpretations and outlines some common words that are important, but ambiguous. He then illustrates the complexities involved in reading a page by providing an example: a somewhat abstruse passage written by Aristotle. Richards rewrites this passage in plain English and highlights various distinctions he makes in his rewritten version. His analysis leads him to make the following conclusions about reading pages: it helps to read text keeping in mind vocal emphases to better discern structure (reading aloud), to read slowly and deliberately, and to read with an eye for comparison between meanings—or “translation” in the sense of figuring out the context in which different words are used.

"How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards

2011-04-07T14:59:54Z

JenniferSchrauth:

In “How to Read a Page,” [[I. A Richards]] writes at length about ideal strategies for interacting with and making meaning out of texts. He explains the difficulties involved in varying interpretations and outlines some common words that are important, but ambiguous. He then illustrates the complexities involved in reading a page by providing an example: a somewhat abstruse passage written by Aristotle. Richards rewrites this passage in plain English and highlights various distinctions he makes in his rewritten version. His analysis leads him to make the following conclusions about reading pages: it helps to read text keeping in mind vocal emphases to better discern structure (reading aloud), to read slowly and deliberately, and to read with an eye for comparison between meanings—or “translation” in the sense of figuring out the context in which different words are used.

"How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards

2011-04-07T14:59:23Z

JenniferSchrauth:

In “How to Read a Page,” [[I. A. Richards]] writes at length about ideal strategies for interacting with and making meaning out of texts. He explains the difficulties involved in varying interpretations and outlines some common words that are important, but ambiguous. He then illustrates the complexities involved in reading a page by providing an example: a somewhat abstruse passage written by Aristotle. Richards rewrites this passage in plain English and highlights various distinctions he makes in his rewritten version. His analysis leads him to make the following conclusions about reading pages: it helps to read text keeping in mind vocal emphases to better discern structure (reading aloud), to read slowly and deliberately, and to read with an eye for comparison between meanings—or “translation” in the sense of figuring out the context in which different words are used.

"Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke

2011-04-07T14:58:56Z

JenniferSchrauth:

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.

"Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences" by Mikhail Bakhtin

2011-04-07T14:57:58Z

JenniferSchrauth:

[[Ferdinand de Saussure]] was a great influence on [[Mikhail Bakhtin]], author of the article “Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences.” Here Bakhtin outlies a variety of theories that aid understanding in the non-exact human sciences. For one, he contrasts the idea of a subject (or personality) with a thing, saying that understanding of a subject must be dialogic, i.e., based on contextual meaning (unlike the monological dialectic of the natural sciences). Through dialogic contact, one’s own words and another’s words join to form a personality, which requires a semantic context. Bakhtin also discusses reification (becoming a thing) and personification (becoming a personality), saying neither can be reached in full.

"Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure

2011-04-07T14:57:38Z

JenniferSchrauth:

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.

"Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences" by Mikhail Bakhtin

2011-04-07T14:57:04Z

JenniferSchrauth:

[[Ferdinand de Saussure]] was a great influence on Mikhail Bakhtin, author of the article “Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences.” Here Bakhtin outlies a variety of theories that aid understanding in the non-exact human sciences. For one, he contrasts the idea of a subject (or personality) with a thing, saying that understanding of a subject must be dialogic, i.e., based on contextual meaning (unlike the monological dialectic of the natural sciences). Through dialogic contact, one’s own words and another’s words join to form a personality, which requires a semantic context. Bakhtin also discusses reification (becoming a thing) and personification (becoming a personality), saying neither can be reached in full.

User:JenniferSchrauth

2011-04-05T20:06:55Z

JenniferSchrauth:

Article Summaries

2011-04-05T20:02:46Z

JenniferSchrauth:

*[["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]]
*[["Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences" by Mikhail Bakhtin]]
*[["Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke]]
*[["How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards]]
*[["Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope" by Donald C. Bryant]]
*[["What Is an Author?" by Michel Foucault]]
*[[“Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes]]
*[["The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" by Chaïm Perelman]]
*[[“The Cultural Role of Rhetoric” by Richard Weaver]]
*[["The Layout of Arguments" by Stephen Toulmin]]
*[["On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic" by Robert L. Scott]]
*[[“In Lieu of a New Rhetoric” by Richard Ohmann]]
*[["On the End of Rhetoric: Classical and Modern" by S. Michael Halloran]]
*[["Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love" by Jim W. Corder]]
*[["CCCC Position Statement"]]
*[[“The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones” by Cynthia L. Selfe & Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]
*[[“From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technology” by Dennis Baron]]

“From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technology” by Dennis Baron

2011-04-05T20:00:49Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "In “From Pencils to Pixels,” Dennis Baron asserts that “the computer is simply the latest step in a long line of writing technologies” (118). Before stating his assertion..."

In “From Pencils to Pixels,” Dennis Baron asserts that “the computer is simply the latest step in a long line of writing technologies” (118). Before stating his assertion, Baron provides a short glimpse of reactions to technologies, specifically to computers: some love them and some are extremely adverse to them. He also describes the general trend of reactions to new technologies introduced into society: excitement and confusion, tried out, rejected, and adapted into daily life while adapting ourselves to it as well. Baron proves this point by going all the way back to the first writing technology: writing. Since ancient times, many have been skeptical about writing, for some had been used for fraudulent purposes. However, today we are surrounded by text and have adapted ourselves to the written word. Baron continues to describe the development of the pencil. While many are so familiar with this technology that they believe it’s the “natural” and “traditional” way, the pencil was a created as well and changed the writing process. Then came the telegraph to which the creator of the modern pencil--Thoreau--was opposed. Then, he goes on to discuss the controversy of the telephone, in which elicited many unrealized predictions. Finally, Baron discusses the history of computer technology. For the full adaption and acceptance of the computer (like with all other technologies), people need to be able to authenticate the writing to ensure their trust and confidence, in addition to attributing expertise to the author. Since this is so difficult on the Internet, the task becomes creating ways or methods in which people can do that. Baron finishes his article with a few predictions that some have made regarding the future of the computer and the Internet and states that it is still too soon to see what is in store for the future.

"CCCC Position Statement"

2011-04-05T20:00:34Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "Most classes now require students compose some of their writing with computers. Since the focus now includes both traditional writing and digital writing, there needs to be an ev..."

Most classes now require students compose some of their writing with computers. Since the focus now includes both traditional writing and digital writing, there needs to be an evaluation of what practices work best for digital composing, so professors can be certain students understand the assignments.

"Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love" by Jim W. Corder

2011-04-05T20:00:12Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "In “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love,” Jim W. Corder claims that we are all constantly creating and adapting our own narratives and arguments as we live our lives. How..."

In “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love,” Jim W. Corder claims that we are all constantly creating and adapting our own narratives and arguments as we live our lives. However, sometimes we will come across the narrative/argument of another that conflicts with or undermines ours. What to do in such a situation? Corder first references the therapeutic techniques of Carl Rogers, which were adapted to a rhetorical philosophy based on mutual understanding of the positions of each rhetor. But Corder thinks this isn’t sufficient to resolve some conflicts, as with heated political issues like abortion or war. In these situations he proposes we “see each other,” “know each other,” “be present to each other,” and “embrace each other” (421). As he writes, argument is not a display or presentation; it is an emergence towards the other: rhetoric should allow for a more commodious space in which conflicting views can coexist. Corder offers a variety of ways to facilitate this, such as learning to argue provisionally, or to remain “perpetually open and always closing” (425).

"On the End of Rhetoric: Classical and Modern" by S. Michael Halloran

2011-04-05T19:59:56Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "In his essay “On the End of Rhetoric, Classical and Modern,” Halloran lays out a well-organized argument that proceeds logically from part to part, ultimately resulting in th..."

In his essay “On the End of Rhetoric, Classical and Modern,” Halloran lays out a well-organized argument that proceeds logically from part to part, ultimately resulting in the validation of his dissertation, of which this essay was originally a part of. First Halloran defines classical rhetoric as resting on wisdom and the availability of cultural knowledge, going so far as to say that the Renaissance was a rhetorical period based on the model of the “Renaissance man” who is perceived to know everything. Halloran then uses this definition to say that because of our lack of shared worlds and common knowledge, classical rhetoric cannot exist in the world today. He goes onto say that rhetoric can only be possible when speaker and audience “enter into the rhetorical transaction as a serious existential commitment” (338). All of this sets up Halloran’s argument that literature (as distinguished from propaganda by ethos) can be rhetorical for a number of reasons: literature is our means through which we become knowledgeable of the world, it gives shape to one’s self and world, and creates a shared world through which speaker and audience can existentially interact through shared lexicon and grammar. Literature is also concerned with audience, as all rhetoric is, and we can tell this through the use of conventionalized, repeatable patterns, without which literature would be chaotic and privatized.

“In Lieu of a New Rhetoric” by Richard Ohmann

2011-04-05T19:59:38Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "In “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric,” Richard Ohmann starts by acknowledging the past perceptions of rhetoric as a “mysterious power” and as a “calculated procedure” bond i..."

In “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric,” Richard Ohmann starts by acknowledging the past perceptions of rhetoric as a “mysterious power” and as a “calculated procedure” bond in the similar characteristic of dealing with persuasion (298). He continues by contrasting the views of many of the new rhetoricians like I.A. Richards, Daniel Fogarty, and Richard Weaver--to name a few. He then states his purpose: “suggest one way in which contemporary ideas of rhetoric...resemble each other more than any of them resembles older ideas” (300). This similarity between the contemporary ideas is that they open the term rhetoric to incorporate a broader spectrum of linguistic activity; this is different from the classical view of rhetoric as persuasion. Ohmann outlines these relationships using five aspects: the relationship between the rhetor and the audience in which new rhetoric encompasses a more mutual relationship, rhetoric as a pursuit versus the transmission of truth, candor as a necessary condition of making rhetoric, the attribution of how much a work reflects the author (only in style says new rhetoricians), and rhetoric reflecting the concepts of a world view (of the world, community, group, or an individual). Ohmann continues to discuss rhetoric in terms of teaching freshman-level college students. He states that the current methods of grammarian rules, etc. are not affective in the classroom. Rather, he proposes a “four-part framework” for teaching freshman. First, the students must understand “the relationship between a piece of writing and its content.Then, they should be taught the “relationship between a piece of writing and its author” and its relationship with the audience (304). And, final idea they should learn is that of the world views previously discussed by Ohmann.

"On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic" by Robert L. Scott

2011-04-05T19:59:06Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "Robert L. Scott begins “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic” by explaining how in the common conception of classical rhetoric (such as Plato’s portrayal in the Socratic dialog..."

Robert L. Scott begins “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic” by explaining how in the common conception of classical rhetoric (such as Plato’s portrayal in the Socratic dialogues), some people can know the “truth” and must use rhetoric to lead others to the truth. Yet Scott disagrees. Drawing on the work of Stephen Toulmin, he first explains how through the “analytic argument” (i.e., the kind of argument used in the traditional syllogism), one cannot actually gain any empirical knowledge about the world. This is because by nature, the facts of the world are contingent and dependent on time, whereas analytic arguments are meant to be immutable and time-independent. Scott then discusses Douglas Ehninger and Wayne Brockriede’s views on debate, saying that the “cooperative critical inquiry” used in debate is a more accurate means for finding—or creating—truth. Scott then explains how understanding the nature of truth has important ramifications in ethics. One must attempt to make the proper moral choices even though no objective standard of truth for ethics actually exists.

"The Layout of Arguments" by Stephen Toulmin

2011-04-05T19:58:50Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "In “The Layout of Arguments,” Stephen Toulmin’s thesis is that a new framework is needed for argumentation, as an alternative to the syllogism. The framework (or layout) he..."

In “The Layout of Arguments,” Stephen Toulmin’s thesis is that a new framework is needed for argumentation, as an alternative to the syllogism. The framework (or layout) he proposes involves a claim made due to some data, a warrant (often implicit) given to support the inference of the claim from the data, possibly a qualification added to the claim along with conditions of exception, and backing supplied to provide sufficient grounds for a warrant. Toulmin claims that the syllogism is too ambiguous because, for instance, universal premises (such as “All men are mortal”) do not properly distinguish between warrant and backing. Additionally, with a syllogism one cannot always tell whether a universal premise is true only in theory or in existential, empirical fact. Toulmin explains that logicians have too long relied on the syllogism and that in doing so they have forced arguments into a mold that doesn’t take into account subtle distinctions.

“The Cultural Role of Rhetoric” by Richard Weaver

2011-04-05T19:58:30Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "“The Cultural Role of Rhetoric” by Richard Weaver discusses the necessity of pairing dialect and rhetoric. His major claim is that societies cannot be secure or stable unless..."

“The Cultural Role of Rhetoric” by Richard Weaver discusses the necessity of pairing dialect and rhetoric. His major claim is that societies cannot be secure or stable unless there exists a conjoining of dialect and rhetoric and that “dialect alone in the social realm is subversive” (76). Weaver claims that just focusing on dialect, as was the case with Socrates and is the case with the semantics, is dangerous and alienates dialectical purist from the rest of society. Using the end of one of the greatest and well-known philosophers, Socrates, he explains that the audience he was preaching to was not able to connect to his rationalistic discourse and argumentation. Thus, instead of praising his rational logic and argumentation, the audience felt alienated from Socrates and that he rejects their culture, values, and way of life, especially when he argues that he believes in the gods. As Socrates believes that this argumentation (dialectical) is all man needs and fulfills all man’s needs, Weaver argues that this puristic form of dialect strays to far from the conditio humana (human condition). Thus, rhetoric has the appeal to the human condition that dialect lacks. Weaver states that dialectic deals with inductions and syllogisms while rhetoric deals with examples and enthymemes. While people can follow syllogisms and inductions, they connect with examples and enthymemes. It is the common ground upon which persuasion can occur. Weaver further states that this is why Hellenistic rationalism died out and Christianity spread far and wide -- Jesus appealed to feelings, ideas, and hopes that Hellenistic rationalism could or would not. Weaver goes on to argue against the semantics--those who believe only in dialectic and that each word should have its appropriate definition and words without a secure definition should not be used--using the same principles discussed above. He ends by saying that rhetoric will survive dialectic attack.

"The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" by Chaïm Perelman

2011-04-05T19:58:09Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "In "The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" Perelman starts his essay by explaining the fall out of classical rhetoric, and how the current rhetoric is different from ..."

In "The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" Perelman starts his essay by explaining the fall out of classical rhetoric, and how the current rhetoric is different from the definitions it use to have. He doesn’t throw out the idea of classical rhetoric completely, though; he gives examples to show that classical rhetoric was practical, rather than just an empty style. Perelman tells how he discovered what he calls new rhetoric by studying how people make value judgments (connects with dialectical reasoning). Since the new rhetoric is “a theory of argumentation,” it is important to understand what differentiates argumentation from simply demonstrating (153). A demonstration is based off of rules and guidelines that were previously created. In demonstration, the orator/rhetor does not try to persuade or compel his or her audience. Argumentation, however, has the purpose of moving the audience, persuading the audience, communicating with the audience, and getting the audience to listen (154-55). All argumentation, therefore, must be made to be effective to its audience. This is where new rhetoric differentiates from classical rhetoric. New rhetoric “has a wider scope as nonformal reasoning that aims at obtaining or reinforcing the adherence of an audience” (155).

After learning what new rhetoric is, Perelman teaches us how it works. There are the uses of facts, truths, presumptions, values, hierarchies, and loci of the preferable. Facts and truths are things universally agreed upon; the orator does not need to spent his or her time trying to get the audience to believe these facts/truths. Values play the role of moving the audience, influencing their decisions. Perelman mentions that values that may seem universal are really not. He argues there is just a desire for an universal agreement. In any situation, the orator must “know the opinion of [his or her] audience,” so he or she can answer any questions asked (159). The orator must be have prepared his argument with relevant information both to the audience and the subject. They must also know what they considered a strong/weak argument, and what type of argument will get his audience will care for (listen to), and what type of argument his audience won’t care about (159). The orator must choose an effective argument and structure it so his or her audience comes to his or her desired conclusion.

Perelman talks about Quasi Logical arguments that uses an artificial language so “one sign can have only one meaning” (162). There are also arguments that appeal to the real, meaning they are based on reality’s structure. Arguments that attempt to establish the real are arguments trying to generate a reality.

Perelman also discusses how to deal with dissociation. According to him, philosophers use dissociation to move the audience from common sense into a “vision of reality” that doesn’t have conflict of opinions.

“Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes

2011-04-05T19:57:47Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "“Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes discusses and criticizes the emphasis literary critics place on the author while offering an alternative emphasis. The article claims ..."

“Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes discusses and criticizes the emphasis literary critics place on the author while offering an alternative emphasis. The article claims that many have tried to break the idea that so much weight of discourse lies upon the authors. The examples include Mallarme’s attempt to suppress the author in poetics and Valery’s stress on linguistics and the text. Barthes claims that nothing is original because it all comes from already constructed dictionary from which all write. The dictionary, he also asserts, is just a “tissue of signs imitation that is lost, infinitely deferred.” Then, Barthes states that putting an author on the text limits it and potential interpretations. He further states that the existence of writing is “a text...made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations...” All of this multiplicity is thus focused in the readers. They are the ones that have to power to make a variety of different interpretations, emotions, and hold all the traces of text of which the text being read consists. The author can only understand and convey his/her own interpretation. Therefore, “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.”

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

2011-04-05T19:57:30Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "Bryant’s purpose is to discuss the “functions and scope with any system will embrace” (268). There are many confusing meanings to rhetoric, making it difficult to actually ..."

Bryant’s purpose is to discuss the “functions and scope with any system will embrace” (268). There are many confusing meanings to rhetoric, making it difficult to actually analyze. One example of a confusing meaning is rhetoric as the use of empty language (“language used to deceive, without honest intention behind it” [269]). Rhetoric is also referred to as a way of saying anything. Bryant understands rhetoric to be the “rationale of informative and suasory discourse” (271). This rhetoric does not include symbols (stop signs, pictures, colors, sirens, etc.). Rhetors, though they don’t have to be specialists in the subject, must thoroughly understand their subjects, so they can find a way to get their audiences to understand and move. This also implies rhetoric is concerned with appearance; truth has to look true, just as dishonest rhetoric should be realized as dishonest.

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).

"How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards

2011-04-05T19:57:11Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "In “How to Read a Page,” I. A. Richards writes at length about ideal strategies for interacting with and making meaning out of texts. He explains the difficulties involved in..."

In “How to Read a Page,” I. A. Richards writes at length about ideal strategies for interacting with and making meaning out of texts. He explains the difficulties involved in varying interpretations and outlines some common words that are important, but ambiguous. He then illustrates the complexities involved in reading a page by providing an example: a somewhat abstruse passage written by Aristotle. Richards rewrites this passage in plain English and highlights various distinctions he makes in his rewritten version. His analysis leads him to make the following conclusions about reading pages: it helps to read text keeping in mind vocal emphases to better discern structure (reading aloud), to read slowly and deliberately, and to read with an eye for comparison between meanings—or “translation” in the sense of figuring out the context in which different words are used.

"Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke

2011-04-05T19:56:49Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "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 (sym..."

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.

"Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences" by Mikhail Bakhtin

2011-04-05T19:56:22Z

JenniferSchrauth: Created page with "Saussure was a great influence on Mikhail Bakhtin, author of the article “Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences.” Here Bakhtin outlies a variety of theories that aid un..."

Saussure was a great influence on Mikhail Bakhtin, author of the article “Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences.” Here Bakhtin outlies a variety of theories that aid understanding in the non-exact human sciences. For one, he contrasts the idea of a subject (or personality) with a thing, saying that understanding of a subject must be dialogic, i.e., based on contextual meaning (unlike the monological dialectic of the natural sciences). Through dialogic contact, one’s own words and another’s words join to form a personality, which requires a semantic context. Bakhtin also discusses reification (becoming a thing) and personification (becoming a personality), saying neither can be reached in full.

Article Summaries

2011-04-05T19:56:09Z

JenniferSchrauth:

*[["Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure]]
*[["Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences" by Mikhail Bakhtin]]
*[["Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke]]

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.

*[["How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards]]

In “How to Read a Page,” I. A. Richards writes at length about ideal strategies for interacting with and making meaning out of texts. He explains the difficulties involved in varying interpretations and outlines some common words that are important, but ambiguous. He then illustrates the complexities involved in reading a page by providing an example: a somewhat abstruse passage written by Aristotle. Richards rewrites this passage in plain English and highlights various distinctions he makes in his rewritten version. His analysis leads him to make the following conclusions about reading pages: it helps to read text keeping in mind vocal emphases to better discern structure (reading aloud), to read slowly and deliberately, and to read with an eye for comparison between meanings—or “translation” in the sense of figuring out the context in which different words are used.

*[["Rhetoric: Its Functions and Its Scope" by Donald C. Bryant]]

Bryant’s purpose is to discuss the “functions and scope with any system will embrace” (268). There are many confusing meanings to rhetoric, making it difficult to actually analyze. One example of a confusing meaning is rhetoric as the use of empty language (“language used to deceive, without honest intention behind it” [269]). Rhetoric is also referred to as a way of saying anything. Bryant understands rhetoric to be the “rationale of informative and suasory discourse” (271). This rhetoric does not include symbols (stop signs, pictures, colors, sirens, etc.). Rhetors, though they don’t have to be specialists in the subject, must thoroughly understand their subjects, so they can find a way to get their audiences to understand and move. This also implies rhetoric is concerned with appearance; truth has to look true, just as dishonest rhetoric should be realized as dishonest.

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).

*[["What Is an Author?" by Michel Foucault]]

*[[“Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes]]

“Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes discusses and criticizes the emphasis literary critics place on the author while offering an alternative emphasis. The article claims that many have tried to break the idea that so much weight of discourse lies upon the authors. The examples include Mallarme’s attempt to suppress the author in poetics and Valery’s stress on linguistics and the text. Barthes claims that nothing is original because it all comes from already constructed dictionary from which all write. The dictionary, he also asserts, is just a “tissue of signs imitation that is lost, infinitely deferred.” Then, Barthes states that putting an author on the text limits it and potential interpretations. He further states that the existence of writing is “a text...made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations...” All of this multiplicity is thus focused in the readers. They are the ones that have to power to make a variety of different interpretations, emotions, and hold all the traces of text of which the text being read consists. The author can only understand and convey his/her own interpretation. Therefore, “the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.”

*[["The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" by Chaïm Perelman]]

In "The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" Perelman starts his essay by explaining the fall out of classical rhetoric, and how the current rhetoric is different from the definitions it use to have. He doesn’t throw out the idea of classical rhetoric completely, though; he gives examples to show that classical rhetoric was practical, rather than just an empty style. Perelman tells how he discovered what he calls new rhetoric by studying how people make value judgments (connects with dialectical reasoning). Since the new rhetoric is “a theory of argumentation,” it is important to understand what differentiates argumentation from simply demonstrating (153). A demonstration is based off of rules and guidelines that were previously created. In demonstration, the orator/rhetor does not try to persuade or compel his or her audience. Argumentation, however, has the purpose of moving the audience, persuading the audience, communicating with the audience, and getting the audience to listen (154-55). All argumentation, therefore, must be made to be effective to its audience. This is where new rhetoric differentiates from classical rhetoric. New rhetoric “has a wider scope as nonformal reasoning that aims at obtaining or reinforcing the adherence of an audience” (155).

After learning what new rhetoric is, Perelman teaches us how it works. There are the uses of facts, truths, presumptions, values, hierarchies, and loci of the preferable. Facts and truths are things universally agreed upon; the orator does not need to spent his or her time trying to get the audience to believe these facts/truths. Values play the role of moving the audience, influencing their decisions. Perelman mentions that values that may seem universal are really not. He argues there is just a desire for an universal agreement. In any situation, the orator must “know the opinion of [his or her] audience,” so he or she can answer any questions asked (159). The orator must be have prepared his argument with relevant information both to the audience and the subject. They must also know what they considered a strong/weak argument, and what type of argument will get his audience will care for (listen to), and what type of argument his audience won’t care about (159). The orator must choose an effective argument and structure it so his or her audience comes to his or her desired conclusion.

Perelman talks about Quasi Logical arguments that uses an artificial language so “one sign can have only one meaning” (162). There are also arguments that appeal to the real, meaning they are based on reality’s structure. Arguments that attempt to establish the real are arguments trying to generate a reality.

Perelman also discusses how to deal with dissociation. According to him, philosophers use dissociation to move the audience from common sense into a “vision of reality” that doesn’t have conflict of opinions.

*[[“The Cultural Role of Rhetoric” by Richard Weaver]]

“The Cultural Role of Rhetoric” by Richard Weaver discusses the necessity of pairing dialect and rhetoric. His major claim is that societies cannot be secure or stable unless there exists a conjoining of dialect and rhetoric and that “dialect alone in the social realm is subversive” (76). Weaver claims that just focusing on dialect, as was the case with Socrates and is the case with the semantics, is dangerous and alienates dialectical purist from the rest of society. Using the end of one of the greatest and well-known philosophers, Socrates, he explains that the audience he was preaching to was not able to connect to his rationalistic discourse and argumentation. Thus, instead of praising his rational logic and argumentation, the audience felt alienated from Socrates and that he rejects their culture, values, and way of life, especially when he argues that he believes in the gods. As Socrates believes that this argumentation (dialectical) is all man needs and fulfills all man’s needs, Weaver argues that this puristic form of dialect strays to far from the conditio humana (human condition). Thus, rhetoric has the appeal to the human condition that dialect lacks. Weaver states that dialectic deals with inductions and syllogisms while rhetoric deals with examples and enthymemes. While people can follow syllogisms and inductions, they connect with examples and enthymemes. It is the common ground upon which persuasion can occur. Weaver further states that this is why Hellenistic rationalism died out and Christianity spread far and wide -- Jesus appealed to feelings, ideas, and hopes that Hellenistic rationalism could or would not. Weaver goes on to argue against the semantics--those who believe only in dialectic and that each word should have its appropriate definition and words without a secure definition should not be used--using the same principles discussed above. He ends by saying that rhetoric will survive dialectic attack.

*[["The Layout of Arguments" by Stephen Toulmin]]

In “The Layout of Arguments,” Stephen Toulmin’s thesis is that a new framework is needed for argumentation, as an alternative to the syllogism. The framework (or layout) he proposes involves a claim made due to some data, a warrant (often implicit) given to support the inference of the claim from the data, possibly a qualification added to the claim along with conditions of exception, and backing supplied to provide sufficient grounds for a warrant. Toulmin claims that the syllogism is too ambiguous because, for instance, universal premises (such as “All men are mortal”) do not properly distinguish between warrant and backing. Additionally, with a syllogism one cannot always tell whether a universal premise is true only in theory or in existential, empirical fact. Toulmin explains that logicians have too long relied on the syllogism and that in doing so they have forced arguments into a mold that doesn’t take into account subtle distinctions.

*[["On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic" by Robert L. Scott]]

Robert L. Scott begins “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic” by explaining how in the common conception of classical rhetoric (such as Plato’s portrayal in the Socratic dialogues), some people can know the “truth” and must use rhetoric to lead others to the truth. Yet Scott disagrees. Drawing on the work of Stephen Toulmin, he first explains how through the “analytic argument” (i.e., the kind of argument used in the traditional syllogism), one cannot actually gain any empirical knowledge about the world. This is because by nature, the facts of the world are contingent and dependent on time, whereas analytic arguments are meant to be immutable and time-independent. Scott then discusses Douglas Ehninger and Wayne Brockriede’s views on debate, saying that the “cooperative critical inquiry” used in debate is a more accurate means for finding—or creating—truth. Scott then explains how understanding the nature of truth has important ramifications in ethics. One must attempt to make the proper moral choices even though no objective standard of truth for ethics actually exists.

*[[“In Lieu of a New Rhetoric” by Richard Ohmann]]

In “In Lieu of a New Rhetoric,” Richard Ohmann starts by acknowledging the past perceptions of rhetoric as a “mysterious power” and as a “calculated procedure” bond in the similar characteristic of dealing with persuasion (298). He continues by contrasting the views of many of the new rhetoricians like I.A. Richards, Daniel Fogarty, and Richard Weaver--to name a few. He then states his purpose: “suggest one way in which contemporary ideas of rhetoric...resemble each other more than any of them resembles older ideas” (300). This similarity between the contemporary ideas is that they open the term rhetoric to incorporate a broader spectrum of linguistic activity; this is different from the classical view of rhetoric as persuasion. Ohmann outlines these relationships using five aspects: the relationship between the rhetor and the audience in which new rhetoric encompasses a more mutual relationship, rhetoric as a pursuit versus the transmission of truth, candor as a necessary condition of making rhetoric, the attribution of how much a work reflects the author (only in style says new rhetoricians), and rhetoric reflecting the concepts of a world view (of the world, community, group, or an individual). Ohmann continues to discuss rhetoric in terms of teaching freshman-level college students. He states that the current methods of grammarian rules, etc. are not affective in the classroom. Rather, he proposes a “four-part framework” for teaching freshman. First, the students must understand “the relationship between a piece of writing and its content.Then, they should be taught the “relationship between a piece of writing and its author” and its relationship with the audience (304). And, final idea they should learn is that of the world views previously discussed by Ohmann.

*[["On the End of Rhetoric: Classical and Modern" by S. Michael Halloran]]

In his essay “On the End of Rhetoric, Classical and Modern,” Halloran lays out a well-organized argument that proceeds logically from part to part, ultimately resulting in the validation of his dissertation, of which this essay was originally a part of. First Halloran defines classical rhetoric as resting on wisdom and the availability of cultural knowledge, going so far as to say that the Renaissance was a rhetorical period based on the model of the “Renaissance man” who is perceived to know everything. Halloran then uses this definition to say that because of our lack of shared worlds and common knowledge, classical rhetoric cannot exist in the world today. He goes onto say that rhetoric can only be possible when speaker and audience “enter into the rhetorical transaction as a serious existential commitment” (338). All of this sets up Halloran’s argument that literature (as distinguished from propaganda by ethos) can be rhetorical for a number of reasons: literature is our means through which we become knowledgeable of the world, it gives shape to one’s self and world, and creates a shared world through which speaker and audience can existentially interact through shared lexicon and grammar. Literature is also concerned with audience, as all rhetoric is, and we can tell this through the use of conventionalized, repeatable patterns, without which literature would be chaotic and privatized.

*[["Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love" by Jim W. Corder]]

In “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love,” Jim W. Corder claims that we are all constantly creating and adapting our own narratives and arguments as we live our lives. However, sometimes we will come across the narrative/argument of another that conflicts with or undermines ours. What to do in such a situation? Corder first references the therapeutic techniques of Carl Rogers, which were adapted to a rhetorical philosophy based on mutual understanding of the positions of each rhetor. But Corder thinks this isn’t sufficient to resolve some conflicts, as with heated political issues like abortion or war. In these situations he proposes we “see each other,” “know each other,” “be present to each other,” and “embrace each other” (421). As he writes, argument is not a display or presentation; it is an emergence towards the other: rhetoric should allow for a more commodious space in which conflicting views can coexist. Corder offers a variety of ways to facilitate this, such as learning to argue provisionally, or to remain “perpetually open and always closing” (425).

*[["CCCC Position Statement"]]

Most classes now require students compose some of their writing with computers. Since the focus now includes both traditional writing and digital writing, there needs to be an evaluation of what practices work best for digital composing, so professors can be certain students understand the assignments.

*[[“The Politics of the Interface: Power and Its Exercise in Electronic Contact Zones” by Cynthia L. Selfe & Richard J. Selfe Jr.]]

*[[“From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technology” by Dennis Baron]]

In “From Pencils to Pixels,” Dennis Baron asserts that “the computer is simply the latest step in a long line of writing technologies” (118). Before stating his assertion, Baron provides a short glimpse of reactions to technologies, specifically to computers: some love them and some are extremely adverse to them. He also describes the general trend of reactions to new technologies introduced into society: excitement and confusion, tried out, rejected, and adapted into daily life while adapting ourselves to it as well. Baron proves this point by going all the way back to the first writing technology: writing. Since ancient times, many have been skeptical about writing, for some had been used for fraudulent purposes. However, today we are surrounded by text and have adapted ourselves to the written word. Baron continues to describe the development of the pencil. While many are so familiar with this technology that they believe it’s the “natural” and “traditional” way, the pencil was a created as well and changed the writing process. Then came the telegraph to which the creator of the modern pencil--Thoreau--was opposed. Then, he goes on to discuss the controversy of the telephone, in which elicited many unrealized predictions. Finally, Baron discusses the history of computer technology. For the full adaption and acceptance of the computer (like with all other technologies), people need to be able to authenticate the writing to ensure their trust and confidence, in addition to attributing expertise to the author. Since this is so difficult on the Internet, the task becomes creating ways or methods in which people can do that. Baron finishes his article with a few predictions that some have made regarding the future of the computer and the Internet and states that it is still too soon to see what is in store for the future.

RhetorClick - User contributions [en]

User:JenniferSchrauth

Definitions of Rhetoric

User:JenniferSchrauth

Glossary

Glossary

Glossary

Glossary

Glossary

Glossary

Definitions of Rhetoric

Directory

Glossary

Glossary

“Contrasts: Teaching and Learning about Writing in Traditional and Computer Classrooms” by Mike Palmquist, Kate Kiefer, James Hartvigsen, and Barbara Goodlew

Dennis Baron

Authors

“From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technology” by Dennis Baron

Jim W. Corder

"Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love" by Jim W. Corder

"On the End of Rhetoric: Classical and Modern" by S. Michael Halloran

“In Lieu of a New Rhetoric” by Richard Ohmann

"On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic" by Robert L. Scott

"The Layout of Arguments" by Stephen Toulmin

“The Cultural Role of Rhetoric” by Richard Weaver

"The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" by Chaïm Perelman

“Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes

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

"How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards

"How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards

"How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards

"Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke

"Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences" by Mikhail Bakhtin

"Nature of the Linguistic Sign" by Ferdinand de Saussure

"Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences" by Mikhail Bakhtin

User:JenniferSchrauth

Article Summaries

“From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technology” by Dennis Baron

"CCCC Position Statement"

"Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love" by Jim W. Corder

"On the End of Rhetoric: Classical and Modern" by S. Michael Halloran

“In Lieu of a New Rhetoric” by Richard Ohmann

"On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic" by Robert L. Scott

"The Layout of Arguments" by Stephen Toulmin

“The Cultural Role of Rhetoric” by Richard Weaver

"The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning" by Chaïm Perelman

“Death of the Author” by Roland Barthes

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

"How to Read a Page" by I. A. Richards

"Definition of Man" by Kenneth Burke

"Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences" by Mikhail Bakhtin

Article Summaries