|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Sonja Foss says rhetoric is the action humans perform when they use symbols for the purpose of communicating with one another. Whereas Herrick says that rhetoric has more to it than just persuasion, that there are types of rhetoric that form with techniques to gain compliance. I will be contrasting the two different definitions by Foss and Herrick. First, let’s look further into Foss’s definition of rhetoric. She says that in essence that mere rhetoric revolves around symbols and forces of nature if you will. She revolves around four main points that define rhetoric for her. They are as follows: 1) rhetoric is an action; 2) rhetoric is a symbolic action; 3) rhetoric is a human action; and 4) rhetoric functions to enable us to communicate with one another (Foss, 1996, p. 4). I’d like to go over the four main points and focus attention on each one. When she talks about action she is talking about the way humans react and apply action to different situations, that we are always making decisions for ourselves voluntarily. As symbolic action is referred to at number two on her list is when something like the leather chair that I’m sitting on right now for example. The chair is not really a chair; it is more or less a mere object. Yet could be somewhat considered to be a void because the word “chair” was derived from someone long ago that designated c-h-a-i-r for what I am sitting on and what you are sitting on right now(most likely). Metaphysically speaking chair was derived from a nominal point of view. Whereas, Herrick says that rhetoric are mere forms of language, consisting of mediated planning, adaptations to the audience, shaping of human motives, responsive to a situation, and persuasive speaking. Herrick follows what he calls rhetorical discourse that follows this criteria, 1) rhetoric is planned 2) rhetoric is adapted to an audience 3) rhetoric is shaped by human motives 4) rhetoric is responsive to a situation and 5) rhetoric is persuasion seeking. So, looking at Foss and Herrick’s definitions of rhetoric you begin to analyze and assess the similarities and differences. Foss looks at rhetoric in a naive manner, being that rhetoric generally follows human actions and is not a spontaneous action that we perform unknowingly. Whereas Herrick’s point of views on rhetoric seems to be evolving around a general idea that it is adapted to an audience’s point of view, and that “yes” it can be considered a pre-meditated pattern of speaking and persuasion. Herrick seems to go more into detail about rhetoric as a planned form of verbal note between individuals. So for example the way Herrick forms a viewpoint of rhetoric is this. Edward Munch was trying to create a certain response from art spectators by the creation of his painting, “The Scream.” To the untrained eye the painting may be an immoral abstract of idea and have no concept of function. Yet, I think that the painting directly correlates with Herrick’s definition of rhetoric.
Approximate Word count = 1995
Approximate Pages = 8
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|