Sopater’s prolegomena to Hermogenes On Issues contain an outline history of rhetoric. According to this account, rhetoric existed among the gods, and flourished in the time of the heroes (Plato’s etymology of ‘hero’ at Cratylus 398de is cited); the libertarian impulses of rhetoric meant that its fortunes declined under the tyrants, but a renaissance began in Sicily and spread (with Gorgias’ assistance) to Athens, reaching a peak in the fourth century; suppression under the Macedonian hegemony ended with the restoration of good political order (sèfrwn polite…a) under Rome, especially under Hadrian and Antoninus. Interwoven with this narrative is a history of rhetorical technography: in the early period, from Tisias to Isocrates, there is no evidence that written treatises handled issue-theory, although the consistency with which the classical orators apply its principles show that the teaching was transmitted orally (paradÒsei); Cicero provides evidence that the art of rhetoric was preserved in the intervening years, but the earliest technical writers currently in circulation (tîn nàn feromšnwn tecnikîn) are Hermagoras and Lollianus, who identified seven and five issues respectively; 34 it was Minucianus who first established the canonical system of thirteen issues.
Among all the possible definitions of rhetoric, the one that most relates to my work is one that I recently heard from James J. Murphy himself at the “Blending of Disciplines: Rhetoric and the Social Sciences” conference at Emory University on March 19, 2012, who called rhetoric “the art of future discourse.” I wholeheartedly subscribe to this definition for the following reasons: If we opt to consider rhetoric as a yet unspoken and unwritten art, we could probably let loose its denotative and connotative meaning and come to terms with the fact of reimagining and reconceptualizing the concept. As relentless users of rhetoric, it is our duty to re/define it without subscribing it to any ontological and/or metaphysical constraints. This “art of future discourse” may describe both rhetorical practices and the act of translating a text. It also fits, and expands, definitions of rhetoric beginning with Greek and Roman sources by bringing light to the conceptualization of translation practices and pedagogies in the history of rhetoric. About the history and practices of translation, Baker has noted that “from the Greco-Roman period through the Reformation and up to the modern era, [this history] has been told in many ways” (102). The emphasis on the historiography of the teaching of writing from a rhetorical standpoint has also been dissected by translation theorists mentioned in my introduction. 13 My aim in this chapter is to bring transparency to how translation played a significant role in the teaching of rhetorical practices and to explore the far-reaching effects and the historiography of these practices.
Abstract This essay attempts to demonstrate, via surveying 10 classics in the history of rhetoric, that “ornament” collocated with rhetorical figures is widely viewed as inventional or argumentative, especially from ancient Greece to the Renaissance. Further, 5 representative dictionaries illustrate that this term gives priority to useful function in and before the medieval time but turns increasingly aesthetic from the Enlightenment downwards. In a historical-linguistic perspective, the semantic change of “ornament” is discovered to involve two tendency types: “Narrowing” and “Pejoration”, which can be attributed to psychological or cognitive factors, cultural impact and language contact. This rectification of “ornament” justifies from etymology and history of rhetoric that rhetorical figures, deserving a fairer repute, are indeed our flashing argumentative equipment.
The era of history as a literary genre had finally arrived. “We are going through a revolution in the way we read and write history” -- wrote Thierry in 1820.  The Faculty of Letters of the new Université de Paris, created by the decree of March 17th 1808 included among the “letters”, alongside poetry, eloquence, and Greek literature, an ancient and modern history class. “I think that the time has come in which the public will take a liking in history more than in any other serious reading, maybe it is in the order of civilization” -- so wrote A. Thierry in his Letters on the history of France (Lettres sur l'histoire de France).  However, as had done H. de Balzac and A. Dumas before him, he expressed his debt and gratitude to W. Scott. In his first letter, he pledged for a return to the original sources, a work that must begin with scientific work and continue with literary writings. With A. Thierry arose, as has been noted by M. Gauchet, “the historical discipline as we know it.”  It emerged from the convergence of two traditions formerly separated: documentary erudition and narrative exposition. As had done P. de Barante before him, A. Thierry makes of the tale the essential part of history. For, according to A. Thierry, it is not possible for a historian to narrate without painting, and then to paint properly without narrating. What does “painting” mean, according to A. Thierry? To begin with, it is about allowing the past to enter the scene; to display the events and the characters of history fully alive: “I believe that history must not allow, while painting the different eras of history, out of context dissertations”.  For A. Thierry historical painting was also about avoiding anachronisms. It was about knowing whether men and things have really been as they are presented
Another relevant Harvard figure of the time was Barrett Wendell, who taught English at Harvard from 1880-1917. Though his name often appears in scholarship about CTR, Crowley describes him as “a dilettante who studied law but did not pass the bar and who did his scholarly work in American literature” (72). Though he may have been a dilettante, Wendell was also influential as an originator and perpetuator of CTR. Thus, it is important to understand the ideas that influenced his thinking. Berlin traces Wendell’s influences as a scholar of literature and argues that “At the turn of the century, American academics’ [including Wendell] dominant approach to literary scholarship and their dominant method of writing instruction shared a common epistemology” (27). Wozniak makes a similar argument when he states, “A random sampling of the scope of English departments during this period manifests considerably more work offered in philology and literature, which, in turn, influenced the teaching of composition” (103). The literary theory and epistemology that informed the teaching of composition were based on faculty psychology and induction; in other words, they were science-based. The rhetoric that resulted was current-traditional, a rhetoric “grounded in positivistic epistemology” that “provided a counterpart to the scientific logic” of the new elective system (as opposed to the classical-based system) (Berlin, Rhetoric and Reality, 26). The focus on science that created current-traditional rhetoric meant that composition instruction was focused on style and arrangement (Berlin 26).
Gorgias is mentioned in Plato’s Phaedrus as asserting the superiority of probabilities (eikota) to truth, and the capacity of rhetoric to make small things seem large and vice versa (267a). Since such claims (relevant to advertising the power of persuasive speech, as in the Helen) would be more convincingly supported by demonstration than by theory , Plato’s evidence is consistent with Aristotle’s characterisation of Gorgias’ tea ching methods. Plato here pairs Gorgias with an earlier rhetorician, Tisias. This shadowy figure must be approached with extreme caution (Cole 1991b). According to some later sources, Tisias and his teacher Corax founded the art of rhetoric and in doing so anticipated theoretical doctrines not otherwise attested until a much later date. This ‘evidence’ is thoroughly unreliable: it is compromised by the persistent tendency of doxographic traditions to fill evidential voids by conjecture (a tendency which still flourishes in the modern literature on sophistic rhetoric). The earliest stratum of surviving evidence is a safer guide. There are two references to Tisias in Phaedrus, both associating him with arguments from probability (267a, 273a-e), defined as ‘wha t most people think ’ (267a ). Aristotle mentions Tisias as one of the earliest contributors to the development of rhetoric (SE 34, 183b302), and reports that arguments from probability were the sole content of the art of Corax (Rhet. 2.24, 1402a18). Corax (‘Crow’) is likely to be a nickname, and it has been plausibly suggested that Tisias and Corax are in fact one person (Cole 1991b, 80-83). Plato provides evidence that a written text by Tisias was available for Phaedrus to study (Phdr. 273a), but all that we can infer about that text is that it was about arguments from probability and included examples.
One of the reasons for the lack of interest on rhetoric among modern Malay linguistic scholars is because; Malay rhetoric characteristics was known in multiple names such as language style, proverb, metaphor, allusion language, fine language, figurative language, language beauty, courtesy language. Secondly, all of these characteristics are unarranged and in one established knowledge discipline. Third, the absence of specific name that represents the entire beauty concept in Malay language. Last but not least, Malay language is beautifully seen separately from classic rhetoric views, stylistic, semantic, semiotic, esthetic and poetic though these fields are only branches of bigger knowledge source, which is the Malay rhetoric knowledge. All of the issues and problems do not clearly explain the beauty concept in Malay language and in need of a complete and systematic knowledge mapping before the process of Malay rhetoric discipline can be a reality.
That design concerns the particular and probable is equally apparent. Design is always contextually limited and constrained—this client, this location, these stakeholders, these regulations, this time in history. This contextual limitation (particularity) of design situates it in the realm of the probable. The literature on wicked problems (Rittel and Webber, 1973; Rittel, 1988) reflects the fact that design occurs in the face of uncertainty regarding the actual impact of design solutions on desired outcomes. As for invention and judgment, design involves the generation, evaluation and selection from alternatives. Generating alternatives is a process of invention. Evaluation and selection apply judgment. Finally, for physical products, design involves arrangement in space and time. Consider sketches, models, and generally the specifications and instructions needed to physically realize a design.
public. That is, they argue that both the method and the content of communication changed. Both the “post-rhetorical” presidency theory and the “hyper-rhetorical” presidency theory are concerned with the relationship between increased unilateral power of the president and reliance on constant mass-mediated messages. Hartnett, Mercieca, and DiIulio’s assessments align in their evidence that the president’s communication strategy is more concerned with defending presidential action than with defining reality and encouraging public deliberation. Whether this means we have entered a “post-rhetorical” age or that the rhetorical presidency has spun into a “hyper-rhetorical presidency” depends on one’s definition of rhetoric. Hartnett and Mercieca argue that deceptive speech moves from the realm of rhetoric to that of demagoguery. If presidential speech is meant to confuse the public, it is no longer rhetorical but is instead demagogic (what DiIulio calls “hyper-rhetorical”). Presidential abuse of power through speech, of course, was a central concern in the rhetorical presidency model. Tulis argued explicitly that the balance of powers is disrupted when presidents take their agenda directly to the people. 28
For a complete analysis of this matter it is nec- essary to investigate more populist themes and the role of NUs in populist rhetoric. Still, this re- search starts to shed some light on the role of pop- ulist themes in hate speech: populist themes are remarkably present in hate speech against immi- grants, and they need to be investigated to under- stand and challenge hate. Moreover, these pop- ulist themes are likely present in the rhetoric of populist politicians from all over the world as sug- gested in (Mazzoleni and Bracciale, 2018). Thus, the annotation framework of POP-HS-IT can be used to study the relationship between populism and hate speech in different social media corpora and in many languages. In fact, we plan to ap- ply our analysis also on different available corpora in several languages (Basile et al., 2019; Waseem and Hovy, 2016), in order to study differences and commonalities in different cultures and domains.
Those committed to the campaign for global justice thus face a dilemma. On the one hand, the problem of global inequality is urgent and many people die each day as a result of inaction. On the other hand, the introduction of rhetoric into debates about global justice may obstruct the clear presentation of the issues at stake, and may result in our policies being determined by where the sympathies of the best rhetoricians lie, and not by who has the better arguments. One response to these worries is to argue that we should eschew the use of rhetoric, accept that our ability to generate mass support for the global justice movement may be limited, and address our arguments to key opinion formers and policy makers. However, this strategy can only ever have a limited success as the preferences and opinions of constituents are, and must be, an important concern of politicians. Another response is to suggest a division of labour: to suggest that while political theorists continue to use abstract reason to try to establish what our obligations are, they should encourage others to popularize their arguments and make them more persuasive in order to build support behind the campaign for global justice 3 . However this response cannot assuage our worries about the embrace of rhetoric; rhetoric remains manipulative and we must still rely on having the best rhetoricians on our side. The dilemma can be resolved only if we deny that embracing the techniques of rhetoric will debase our arguments. re-examining the radical liberal theories of J.S. Mill, L.T. Hobhouse and J.A. Hobson, will help us to see how this can be done and how rhetoric can be recovered as a respectable and respectful form of argument.
The New Legal Rhetoric SMU Law Review Volume 40 | Issue 4 Article 5 1986 The New Legal Rhetoric Teresa Godwin Phelps Follow this and additional works at https //scholar smu edu/smulr This Article is b[.]
Rule of Legal Rhetoric SMU Law Review Volume 67 | Issue 4 Article 11 2014 Rule of Legal Rhetoric Geoffrey C Hazard Jr Hastings College of the Law, University of California, hazardg@uchastings edu Foll[.]
scholarship in material rhetoric). Like the visual realm, sound is also a non-discursive system for making meaning. There are some who question the ability of either non-discursive system to carry enough specific meaning in order to be meaningful. 10 On the other hand, unlike visual objects, with the exception of auditory visualizations through software and recording devices, sound is invisible. In other words, in placing sound within a symbolic or material plane there has been a significant amount of scholarly dissent. On the symbolic front, Bryant (1953) fought to exclude “non-rhetorical objects” such as “fire alarms and fog horns,” as not carrying their own rhetorical significance. In contrast on the materiality front, with the exception of several brief mentions of sound, such as Blair and Michel’s (2000) note that the sound of water serves a hailing function in the Civil Rights Memorial, material rhetoric scholars have remained largely silent on the presence (or absence) of sounds in memorials, monuments, and museums. Instead visible and tactile material dimensions of objects tend to be foregrounded in material rhetoric scholarship. In other words, despite multimodality’s association with the symbolic in the nature of semiotics, another productive aspect to treating sound from a multimodal composition perspective is by avoiding the false dichotomy of the material/symbolic division altogether.
Legal restrictions and prohibitions on the hate rhetoric use in modern public discourse are clearly not enough. To maintain the proper level of speech freedom, a high level of social trust and the accumulation of social capital are required. Given the scarcity of resources, protecting one’s own rights without violating the rights of others can be problematic, therefore compromises and consensus should be found, putting public discourse at least in a conflict of hatred and trust. While the use of hate rhetoric will be perceived as the norm, it is impossible to correctly discuss complex social problems, and, therefore, successfully solve them.
These amendments would not change any substantive laws. Therefore, they might be accepted by most countries without much protest. However, the impact of these changes will be enormous. First, they will eliminate the derogatory connotation attached to dumping, which will then remove the notion that countries have inherent rights in adopting AD policies. This will then establish that AD is a form of protectionism that needs to be regulated strictly. Once this is established, the problems associated with the lax legal standards in the current AD regime will become more obvious, and proposals will be made to address them. Those proposals will then be accepted more readily because of the consensus formed by the new rhetoric. Thus, the function of the rhetoric of AD as a guideline for good policymaking will be restored.
Next appeared al-Khafaji (d.466H) who wrote a book titled "Sirr al-Fasahah" (Secret Fluency). The content is defending arguments about Quranic Rhetoric become an important contributor to supremacy of the Quran. He was preceded in Motion restructuring Balaghiyyah (fundamental debate Rhetoric) Rhetoric science debate on the order of many contemporary writers talk about Fasahah and Rhetoric al-Kalam. Apparently, from the book "al-Fasahah sirr" writers from the beginning to try title and has stated that two main conditions to be maintained in order sentences. Firstly, avoid Tanafur al-letter (sounds awkward letters) of a word mentioned difficulties caused by the order of the letters. He requires the word to be of the order of letters away from makhraj position. He said the sound out each letter as a reference to the role of hearing and eyesight color to each image when attached brightly colored and clearly visible better than grafts colored image matching. Thus its pronunciation similar letter will definitely tough call. Secondly, he mentioned the word in a sentence should not be foreign and commonly used.