Clarity again matters for comprehension and comprehensibility contributes to persuasiveness. In prose speeches, the good formulation of a state of affairs must therefore be a clear one.
However, saying this is not yet enough to account for the best or excellent prose style, since clear linguistic expressions tend to be banal or flat, while good style should avoid such banality. If the language becomes too banal it will not be able to attract the attention of the audience. The orator can avoid this tendency of banality by the use of dignified or elevated expressions and in general by all formulations that deviate from common usage.
On the one hand, uncommon vocabulary has the advantage of evoking the curiosity of an audience. On the other hand the use of such elevated vocabulary bears a serious risk: Whenever the orator makes excessive use of it, the speech might become unclear, thus failing to meet the default requirement of prose speech, namely clarity. Moreover, if the vocabulary becomes too sublime or dignified in relation to prose's subject matter Aristotle assumes it is mostly everyday affairs , the audience will notice that the orator uses his words with a certain intention and will become suspicious about the orator and his intentions.
Hitting upon the right wording is therefore a matter of being clear, but not too banal; In trying not to be too banal, one must use uncommon, dignified words and phrases, but one must be careful not to use them excessively or inappropriately in relation to prose style and the typical subject matter of prose speeches.
Bringing all these considerations together Aristotle defines the good prose style, i. In this respect the definition of stylistic virtue follows the same scheme as the definition of ethical virtues in Aristotle's ethical writings, insofar as both the stylistic virtue and the virtue of character are defined in terms of a mean that lies between two opposed excesses.
If the virtue of style is defined as a mean between the banality involving form of clarity and overly dignified and hence inappropriate speech, it is with good reason that Aristotle speaks of only one virtue of prose style, and not of clarity, ornament by dignified expressions and appropriateness as three distinct virtues of style.
However, from the times of Cicero and Quintilianus on, these three, along with the correctness of Greek or Latin, became the canonical four virtues of speech virtutes dicendi. Reading Aristotle through the spectacles of the Roman art of rhetoric, scholars often try to identify two, three or four virtues of style in his Rhetoric. Finally, if the virtue of style is about finding a balance between banal clarity, which is dull, and attractive dignity, which is inappropriate in public speeches, how can the orator manage to control the different degrees of clarity and dignity?
Most examples that Aristotle gives of this latter class are taken from the different Greek dialects, and most examples of this type are in turn taken from the language of the Homeric epos. Further classes are defined by metaphors and by several expressions that are somehow altered or modified, e.
Sometimes Aristotle also uses the term kosmos under which he collects all epithets and otherwise ornamental expressions. These different types of words differ in accordance with their familiarity. The best established words, the kuria , make their subject clear, but do not excite the audience's curiosity, whereas all other types of words are not established, and hence have the sort of attraction that alien or foreign things used to have.
Since remote things are admirable thaumaston and the admirable is pleasant, Aristotle says, one should make the speech admirable and pleasant by the use of such unfamiliar words. However one has to be careful not to use inappropriately dignified or poetic words in prose speech.
Thus the virtue of style is accomplished by the selection and balanced use of these various types of words: Fundamental for prose speech is the use of usual and therefore clear words. In order to make the speech pleasant and dignified and in order to avoid banality the orator must make moderate use of non-familiar elements. Metaphor plays an important role for prose style, since metaphors contribute, as Aristotle says, clarity as well as the unfamiliar, surprising effect that avoids banality and tediousness.
These four types are exemplified as follows:. Most of the examples Aristotle offers for types i to iii would not be regarded as metaphors in the modern sense; rather they would fall under the headings of metonomy or synecdoche.
The examples offered for type iv are more like modern metaphors. Aristotle himself regards the metaphors of group iv , which are built from analogy, as the most important type of enthymemes. An analogy is given if the second term is to the first as the fourth to the third. Correspondingly, an analogous metaphor uses the fourth term for the second or the second for the fourth.
This principle can be illustrated by the following Aristotelian examples:. Examples a and b obey the optional instruction that metaphors can be qualified by adding the term to which the proper word is relative cp.
In example c , there is no proper name for the thing that the metaphor refers to. Metaphors are closely related to similes; but as opposed to the later tradition, Aristotle does not define the metaphor as an abbreviated simile, but, the other way around, the simile as a metaphor.
While in the later tradition the use of metaphors has been seen as a matter of mere decoration, which has to delight the hearer, Aristotle stresses the cognitive function of metaphors.
Metaphors, he says, bring about learning Rhet. In order to understand a metaphor, the hearer has to find something common between the metaphor and the thing the metaphor refers to. Thus, a metaphor not only refers to a thing, but simultaneously describes the thing in a certain respect.
Rapp lmu. Works on Rhetoric 2. The Agenda of the Rhetoric 3. Rhetoric as a Counterpart to Dialectic 4. The Purpose of Rhetoric 4. The Three Means of Persuasion 6. The Enthymeme 6. The Topoi 7. Style: How to Say Things with Words 8. The Agenda of the Rhetoric The structure of Rhet. Rhetoric as a Counterpart to Dialectic Aristotle stresses that rhetoric is closely related to dialectic.
This analogy between rhetoric and dialectic can be substantiated by several common features of both disciplines: Rhetoric and dialectic are concerned with things that do not belong to a definite genus or are not the object of a specific science.
Rhetoric and dialectic rely on accepted sentences endoxa. Rhetoric and dialectic are not dependent on the principles of specific sciences. Rhetoric and dialectic are concerned with both sides of an opposition. Rhetoric and dialectic rely on the same theory of deduction and induction. Rhetoric and dialectic similarly apply the so-called topoi.
This is why there are also remarkable differences between the two disciplines: Dialectic can be applied to every object whatsoever, rhetoric is useful especially in practical and public matters. Dialectic proceeds by questioning and answering, while rhetoric for the most part proceeds in continuous form.
Dialectic is concerned with general questions, while rhetoric is concerned for the most part with particular topics i. Certain uses of dialectic apply qualified endoxa , i. Rhetoric must take into account that its target group has only restricted intellectual resources, whereas such concerns are totally absent from dialectic. While dialectic tries to test the consistency of a set of sentences, rhetoric tries to achieve the persuasion of a given audience.
Non-argumentative methods are absent from dialectic, while rhetoric uses non-argumentative means of persuasion. The Three Means of Persuasion The systematical core of Aristotle's Rhetoric is the doctrine that there are three technical means of persuasion. Supplement on The Brevity of the Enthymeme 6. But there are several types of sign-arguments too; Aristotle offers the following examples: Rhetoric I.
Wise men are good, since Pittacus is good. This woman has a child, since she has milk. She is pregnant, since she is pale. Supplement on the Topoi of the Rhetoric 8. This principle can be illustrated by the following Aristotelian examples: Analogy Metaphor a The cup to Dionysus as shield to Ares.
Bibliography Allen, James. Barnes, Jonathan. Berti ed. Padua: Antenore. Bitzer, L. Burnyeat, Myles. Furley and A. Nehamas eds. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Cooper, John M. Cope, Edward Meredith. An Introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric. Cambridge Hildesheim: Olms. Understanding how logos, pathos, and ethos should work together is very important for writers who use research. Often, research writing assignments are written in a way that seems to emphasize logical proofs over emotional or ethical ones.
Such logical proofs in research papers typically consist of factual information, statistics, examples, and other similar evidence. According to this view, writers of academic papers need to be unbiased and objective, and using logical proofs will help them to be that way. Because of this emphasis on logical proofs, you may be less familiar with the kinds of pathetic and ethical proofs available to you.
Pathetic appeals, or appeals to emotions of the audience were considered by ancient rhetoricians as important as logical proofs. Yet, writers are sometimes not easily convinced to use pathetic appeals in their writing. According to Corbett, many of us think that there may be something wrong about using emotions in argument.
But, I agree with Connors, pathetic proofs are not only admissible in argument, but necessary The most basic way of evoking appropriate emotional responses in your audience, according to Corbett, is the use of vivid descriptions This is demonstrated at the beginning of many newspaper and magazine feature articles.
Using ethical appeals, or appeals based on the character of the writer, involves establishing and maintaining your credibility in the eyes of your readers. In other words, when writing, think about how you are presenting yourself to your audience.
Do you give your readers enough reasons to trust you and your argument, or do you give them reasons to doubt your authority and your credibility? Consider all the times when your decision about the merits of a given argument was affected by the person or people making the argument. For example, when watching television news, are you predisposed against certain cable networks and more inclined toward others because you trust them more? So, how can writers establish credible personas for their audiences?
One way to do that is through external research. Conducting research and using it well in your writing help you with the factual proofs logos , but it also shows your readers that you, as the author, have done your homework and know what you are talking about. This knowledge, the sense of your authority that using logos creates among your readers, will help you be a more effective writer.
The logical, pathetic, and ethical appeals work in a dynamic combination with one another. It is sometimes hard to separate one kind of proof from another and the methods by which the writer achieves the desired rhetorical effect. If your research contains data that is likely to cause your readers to be emotional, it can enhance the pathetic aspect of your argument. The key to using the three appeals is to use them in combination with each other and in moderation. It is impossible to construct a successful argument by relying too much on one or two appeals while neglecting the others.
Consider two recent examples of fairly ineffective use of the three appeals. In the beginning of April , two candidates for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama began airing campaign television ads in Pennsylvania ahead of their party's primary presidential election in that state. You can see both ads below. Click to load this video in a new window. Clinton's ad is called "Scranton" and it employs a very heavy of pathos, or emotional appeal.
It invokes very warm childhood memories which, the ad's creators hoped, would show Senator Clinton's "softer side" thus persuading more people to vote for her. The purpose of the ad is to stir emotion, and it does it rather well.
However, the problem with this approach is that it does not tell voters much about the concrete steps and activities Senator Clinton would undertake if elected. The ad is rather thin on the logical appeal, and this, in turn, affects Clinton's ethos or credibility.
Barack Obama's ad is called "One Voice," and calls on his supporters to "change the world. While this is certainly a worthy cause, it is not clear from this ad how exactly Obama -- still a senator at the time -- intended to change the world once elected. The reason for this lack of clarity is the heavy emphasis on the pathetic appeal at the expense of logos.
If you followed the presidential campaign of , you would know that the call for change which is so clear in this ad was Obama's main slogan, a statement than became a large part of his ethos, or persona as a politician and as a rhetorician.
This ad succeeds in highlighting that part of Obama's political persona once again while, probably intentionally, under-emphasizing logos. Identifying these appeals in persuasive writing is a valuable skill to learn; understanding how to use these appeals in your persuasive writing can prove to be an even more powerful ability to develop.
To begin, several ways to appeal to logic exist. Consider the structure and quality of your argument. His leading modern work on rhetoric helped Heinrichs to become a professor of the Practice of Rhetoric and Oratory at Middlebury College. Heinrichs transforms arguments between people by the use of rhetoric, writes an informative chapter, and proves that his book should be continued to be used because it has a positive.
The Greeks were the first to acknowledge rhetoric as an art. Some famous ancient philosophers have given their opinions on this topic. The discussion whether rhetoric can be considered as an art form rather than a mere technique is still relevant nowadays. In this essay, rhetoric is considered as an art form which can develop and adapt to our contemporary society. To begin with, …show more content… Due to the globalisation, the economic policy changed. This change came along with a shift in the public discourse.
It is argued that the globalization and liberalisation of the Indian market changed the traditional image of Indian women as homemakers and mothers, to a more successful, emancipated picture. Furthermore the developments lead to a new notion of male hood including new ideas of success and power.
Additionally, rhetoric played an essential role in the social movements, which came into existence due to moving changes in i. By depicting a new lifestyle, the media supported nationalistic movements. The chapter first considers rhetoric as a source of terms and concepts to discuss the arts, as well as the various strategies offered by rhetoric for persuasive design. It then discusses the concepts and competences informed by rhetoric that viewers brought to the analysis of art such as painting, particularly the concept of style.
Finally, it examines how the use of rhetoric in the arts influences spectatorship. Keywords: rhetoric , visual persuasion , visual arts , Europe , painting , style , spectatorship. Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.
Please subscribe or login to access full text content. If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.
0コメント